Talk:2005 USC Trojans football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2005 USC Trojans football team has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject College football (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California / Southern California (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Southern California task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject University of Southern California (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Southern California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Southern California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Expansion[edit]

This article seriously needs expansion. The 2005 Trojans played for the National Championship, for gosh sakes. Of course, they got whupped, but still, they had the Heisman Trophy winner and all so you'd think we could have a decent article. Feel free to re-use content from 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, just be sure to make a mention of the fact here so that original authors can be attributed under the GFDL. Johntex\talk 16:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I just expanded the article. I re-used, rewriting it slightly, the game capsules from the Notre Dame page (I wrote that) and the Rose Bowl from the Longhorn page (slight rewriting again, made it less Texas-centric). The Legacy section was also from the Texas page from the game capsule there. Once again I tried to make it more USC-centric, but I'm not sure about the section. It could be seen as negative by some and if so I was hoping the note here would prompt it to be rewritten or removed altogether. Phydend 05:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Good summary of the Rose Bowl. It was sort of an odd season for USC in that both the USC-Notre Dame (Bush Push) game and Rose Bowl could be candidates for "best game" --both were certainly mentioned after the happened. As for the legacy section, I think its accurate for what it has, but it could probably use a bit more --things I remember reading but I'd need to find sources to confirm (the two noteworthy games ; the end of those streaks releasing the high pressure on the program --you can even demonstrate the high pressure on the program with the mess Reggie's family got into after the season). --Bobak 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Great work! Congratulations to the two of you and to the others that have helped expand this article. It is really coming along nicely. I think this could make GA with just a little more work. Johntex\talk 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've never looked at making something a GA, so I'm not sure about that, but I do feel better about it now that people are weighing in on it and improving it. I didn't even think about what happened to Reggie's family after the season, but something might be able to be worked into the article about it and everything else. Phydend 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've helped get a few articles to GA. There is a list of them on my User page and you will notice that a few are football related - I would like to help get this one to GA as well. I really think it is getting close to the mark. Johntex\talk 03:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I've been working on another article and just got back to looking here. I just looked over the Good Article Criteria and some of the GAs on your page. I do think this is pretty close to being a GA. The biggest problems I think are lack of pictures (there is a free picture of Pete Carroll I think that could be used and I put a picture request on the Notre Dame game page for perhaps a free picture of the "Bush Push") and maybe length (readable prose is 39 kB, slightly longer than the suggested 32 kB). Truthfully I don't think the length is a big problem that would stop this from being a GA, if it is the Rose Bowl and Notre Dame game summaries could be cut down as there are articles for both of those games. I might add the picture of Carroll when I find it, but other pictures would be great here. I might go over it a couple more times and then nominate it if no one sees any big problems in the next few days. Phydend 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I nominated it today, see what comes of it at least. There are definitely things that can be added, but I do believe it passes the criteria for good articles. Phydend 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it should pass. I won't review it because I made some contributions to this article earlier.
I don't think the photos should be any hold-up. Having photos is not a requirement at all and this article has some good, appropriate ones.
BTW, 2005 Texas Longhorns football team just made FA. After a little break, I plan to see about getting 2006 Rose Bowl there also. If we can get those 2 articles to FA and this one to GA or FA, we may be able to get a Featured Topic designation for the Rose Bowl, using the two teams as sub-articles. Johntex\talk 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor improvements, suggestions, and questions[edit]

  • I think it would be nice to link each opponent from their game summary section. I know they are linked from the schedule, but I think it is convenient to the reader to have a link down where they are reading the actual game summaries. I don't think this would be over-linking. What does everyone else think? Johntex\talk 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering about this. I kind of wanted to link them, but then I thought it was over-linking. Of the season pages I've worked on, none of them have the extra links, but I think they might be useful. Anyone else? Phydend 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
2005 Texas Longhorn football team is currently a GA and is nominated for FA. It has a link within each section to the opposing team. A fair criticism of the article is that the links were not standardized and I think I have now fixed that problem. Johntex\talk 03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

B Class Rating[edit]

| The article meets the following five criteria:

  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
    Yes check.svg
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
    Yes check.svg
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
    Yes check.svg
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
    Yes check.svg
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
    Yes check.svg
  6. Overall:
    B Pass/Fail: Yes check.svg

Upgraded quality rating from Stub to B class. SriMesh | talk 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Notes[edit]

Placed the article into an automated peer reviewer, and it suggested the following copy edit points: Semi Automatic Peer Review of 2005 USC Trojans football team

The article today (oldid=162929415) without tables has a word count of 4,630, characters 22,029 (no spaces) and characters (with spaces) 26,339.

< 15,000 characters around 32 kilobytes > 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs   two or three paragraphs   three or four paragraphs
    • 1. Context - summarize article and all sections so that if only the lead was shown on a portal or on the featured article page, readers would know what the entire article covered, and would be induced to read the sections as well.
    • 2. Characterization - qualifications, tactics, targets, better season, grow people, pre-season games, training info, most valuable player of the game, injuries, challenges and problems of the season, goals or priorities of the University in that year. ie. if it was a biography it would be...appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, cultural background, hobbies, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, personality, what the term refers to as used in the given context.
    • 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background - USC seasons (length....), college football team prerequisites, league it is in.
    • 4. Compare (similarities amongst USC seasons or other 2005 football teams) and contrast (differences amongstUSC seasons or other 2005 football teams)- how USC Trojans 2005 season relates to other topics, if appropriate.
    • 5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.
    • On Recreation | Sporting events and organizations compare this lead to those on passed articles. If the article is a feature article in the future or listed on a portal, only the lead is used to summarize the article and induce the reader to read further sections.

Copyediting: The first time an abbreviation is used in an article the acronym or abbreviation should be spelled out to identify it...Pac-10. It is wikilinked, but it should in this article state...Pacific-10 Conference (Pac-10). Similarly for BCS, AP, NFL, ESPN. Could the link for AP Associated Press be linked near the ranking by the AP and not near the AP Championship or it kind of looks like they win a newspaper.

Who ranked the team second in the nation, as there are a number of ranking systems in the U.S.A.

With their 12-1 record, they finished the season ranked second in the nation.

Source needed for this fact - The infobox template gives the information of Coaches and AP but there is no citation or reference for this.

Most notable of the coaches lost was offensive coordinator Norm Chow who took a job in the same position for the Tennessee Titans. Awkward wording - Does this also say the same thing....The most notable coach lost was offensive coordinator Norm Chow who took a job in the same position for the Tennessee Titans.

For the section Before the season is there another wikipedia article that helps a WWW reader unfamiliar with the U.S. leagues, rankings and systems to link to which would provide understanding of how wonderful or terrible it would be to be declared the holder of the Associated Press championship as compared to a BCS National Championship. The only wiki link about AP championship was at NCAA Division I-A national football championship.

Please to wiki link football terms such as First team for readers not as football savvy as you'se are. (Please and thank you)SriMesh | talk 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Develop (Expand) lead and address above GAN notes b (MoS): Address semi automatic peer reviewer check list of problems as listed at Semi Auto review
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): scanned through a few references after reading article, and they seem to be OK and verify content of the article. b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused): No comment This area looks like it covers all areas and remains focused, but have requested second review of someone more football savvy about this particular college team.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    Talk page and history both correspond to references and no major upsets.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Will enter a request for a second copy editor - possibly this article could go to peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports or Wikipedia:WikiProject College football to obtain confirmation of point 3- coverage.

Good luck with your article, it is very close to GAN and probably also very close to FA. SriMesh | talk 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion[edit]

I believe this article easily satisfies point three. Excellent pre- and postseason sections, and the season is well covered. I would also agree that the Lead needs to be expanded, possibly with a paragraph each on preseason, season, and postseason. Wrad 22:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

This article is in excellent shape, and for the most part, meets the Good article criteria. It is well written, informative, and well referenced. Images meet all criteria, and I cannot see any POV or stability issues.

The only thing keeping it from GA at present is the lead. It is too short, and contains a rather obvious redundancy: "The 2005 University of Southern California football team represented the University of Southern California in the 2005 college football season." Really? Are there any other schools that this team would represent?! Duh!! As soon as the lead is fixed, this article can be promoted to GA status.

As an additional note, most of the so-called "comments" in the "semi-automated" (bullshit, full-automated) review go beyond the GA criteria, and are not necessary for GA status. They might be marginally useful for a future WP:FAC, so I wouldn't totally ignore them. But half of them I wouldn't even worry about for FAC -- I'd value the advice of human reviewers far more.

I am placing this article on hold at WP:GAN until this issue is addressed. Dr. Cash 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On hold time elapsed[edit]

The on hold time has elapsed for this article, and the issues with the lead have not been addressed. It is too short and redundant. Dr. Cash 05:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Improvement[edit]

I finally got back to work on this way after the on-hold time elapsed and hope to bring it to Good Article Review again shortly. I'm going to try and put all the "problems" encountered with the article together so that they can be fixed and checked off. Even though the automated review may go beyond the GA criteria, I'll put them here also since fixing them can only help the article.

  • Semi Automated Peer Review
  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. Note:I expanded the lead to three paragraphs, added citations to many of the points in the lead, and summarized the main points of the article. If the article is expanded, the lead needs to be added to also. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) Note: Already in the article, it is the most appropriate infobox according to the College football WikiProject. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 294 yards, use 294 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 294 yards. Note: The majority of these are now done. I believe all are done, however may have missed one in the process. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006. Note: All dates are now of this format excluding the "Accessdate" field in the citations. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. Note: I made the ToC have a smaller font, much like 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team, however, some of the sections could still be merged together. I don't think it will improve the article as most of the sections are called for in the Yearly team pages format for the college football WikiProject. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. Note: The two games that received the most attention have articles about them, but none of the other games were notable enough. Other subpages wouldn't be appropriate. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, wouldn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. Note: There are no more contractions in the article.Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Note: Unneeded for the GA review. Phydend (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Human Reviewers
  1. Short Lead with redundancy Note: The lead was expanded. The redundancy was addressed somewhat (I think it sounds a little better now), however, according to the Yearly team pages format "X team represented X University" is the correct way to start the article. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Context - summarize article and all sections so that if only the lead was shown on a portal or on the featured article page, readers would know what the entire article covered, and would be induced to read the sections as well. Note: Addressed in the lead. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Characterization - qualifications, tactics, targets, better season, grow people, pre-season games, training info, most valuable player of the game, injuries, challenges and problems of the season, goals or priorities of the University in that year. ie. if it was a biography it would be...appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, cultural background, hobbies, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, personality, what the term refers to as used in the given context.
  4. Explanation - deeper meaning and background - USC seasons (length....), college football team prerequisites, league it is in. Note: I linked their conference, Division, regular season, and college football, all of these give season lengths, league, etc. Phydend (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Compare (similarities amongst USC seasons or other 2005 football teams) and contrast (differences amongst USC seasons or other 2005 football teams)- how USC Trojans 2005 season relates to other topics, if appropriate. Note: The legacy section somewhat compares them to other historical teams, but this definitely could be expanded. I think the rankings are what compares the team to others of the same year.
  6. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. Note: I'm not sure if this is applicable. The closest thing I think in the article is in the legacy section. Phydend (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Abbreviations: First instance is fully spelled out. Note: I believe I got all of them. ESPN is no longer an acronym but others are fixed (Pac 10, BCS, NFL, AP, etc.) Phydend (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Sourcing: Especially in the lead Note: Addressed. See above. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Awkward wording Note: I fixed the instance that was mentioned and have read through it, but don't see anymore really awkward wording. Phydend (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Links to articles on American football rules Note: Linked to the main articles of football rules, strategy, positions, and glossary. Phydend (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Links to first occurrences of terms that someone not familiar with American football wouldn't know Note: I think I got most of these, including fumble, interception, touchdown, extra point, etc. The link to the football glossary should provide sufficient context if these aren't appropriate. Phydend (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe these are all the points that were brought up in the review and as each are addressed they should be struck out and perhaps a small note left on the line. If anyone sees anything else that may prevent it from passing once again please add it here or address it in the article. Phydend (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess kind of quick, but I struck out most of these by now. The only things that I haven't addressed in the concerns shouldn't stop this from being passed. I'm going to place it in the GAR queue, however, it could definitely be improved more while it's waiting to be reviewed. Phydend (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review 2.0[edit]

This is a very good article, it is well-written, well sourced and looks good, so I am promoting it.. One small thing: In the Roster section, at the bottom of the table, there is this: "Sources: http://usc.scout.com/a.z?s=15&p=8&c=2&nid=736&yr=2005", perhaps the link could be reformated to have a title, rather than the URL. Excellent job!

Thanks for the review, I fixed the link so that it's the Title now instead of the URL. Phydend (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea you were all still working on this article (for some strange reason this was the only USC season page not on my watchlist (no more). I've been so obsessed with the 2007 season page that I didn't realize I could've helped here. --Bobak (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

After the first GA failed I quit on it for awhile, but finally got back and fixed most everything they brought up. That 2007 page looks pretty good to me, and I think once the season is over and with a small expansion of the lead section, it could easily pass GA as well. Phydend (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)