Talk:2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 31, 2007.
WikiProject College football (Rated FA-class, Low-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

GA on hold[edit]

An Australian here. Perhaps this will make things amusing.

  • What is BCS? It is not linked
Yes check.svg Done Linked it and spelled out for first reference.
  • Selection is hard to understand. The format for the organisation of the game is needed. How and why are the teams selected
Yes check.svg Done
  • Result should be in the first sentence or so of the lead IMHO.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Crowd figures arenot re-repeated in the main body. They should be
Yes check.svg Done
  • Who was the favourite? This was not discussed in the preview section
Yes check.svg Done
  • Key matchups? Which players were assigned to mark which other players?
Yes check.svg Done This isn't really necessary, but if you think the article needs something along these lines, I can come up with a table of starting lineups. Even that might be going into a little more detail than would be useful for the average reader. What do you think?
I didn't mean list of the formation of each team, I just meant that before the game the commentators will say "X is the key player for team A. Team B will have to nullify him.... "....and they argue about which "player Y from team B" has to "shut down player X" and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, take a look and see if the matchups subsections I've created work for you.
  • WP:MOS - The whole section header should not be capitalised
Yes check.svg Done
  • First quarter. Need cites in the para. Ditto for the other paragraphs. The quarter time half time score etc, I think should not have a a short standalone sentence and should be incorporated
Yes check.svg Done Each of the sections are extrapolated from the play-by-play information cited at the end of the respective paragraphs. Is there a way to cite the entire paragraph with just that one citation, or do I need to repeat that same citation for every sentence? Seems rather silly.
Oh yeah, if it all the para comes from one source then just put it at the end. Although if any big statements are made in the middle of the para then it needs to be referenced next to the quote or whatever. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the appropriate style for those end-paragraph cites? As I've written them, or something else?
I just use<ref name="sdfsd"/> and reuse them, at the end of each paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ”big play”? is this a technical term? It needs a source, otherwise it sounds like OR
How about "game-changing play"?
I think "regarded as a turning point"
Yes check.svg Done
  • ”snap”? link is required for this technical term?
Yes check.svg Done
  • ”Thanks to the” - overall the writing is acceptable but the tone is slightly newspaperish and phrases like this should be avoided in my opinion
Well, I do work for a newspaper... What alternative word/phrase would you suggest?
I would normally use "due to" . "Thanks to" seems like we are getting into it a bit too much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • ”Sean Glennon continued his atrocious second half” - POV
I'm a fan of Virginia Tech and even I can admit it was atrocious. Find me a fan of college football who doesn't find those statistics atrocious, and I'd be happy to change it. They're really, really bad, and atrocious seems to me the best way to get that across. Perhaps a different word would be better -- do you have a suggestion?
I think pointing out that he did A B C D which was an elementary error should suffice. That kind of hyperbole isn't really necessary. Simply pointing out things like "10% accuracy rate" is enough to show poor performance I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I replaced atrocious with "poor play."
  • Players' names are repeated in full over and over again. eg Glennon and a few other guys.
Yes check.svg Done I think the full names are appropriate in separate sections, but no more than once a section or subsection. I've tried to go with that idea. Let me know if you spot any exceptions, and I'll fix them.
ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ”The defensive play of Taylor, Oliver, and Johnson greatly affected the course of the game and is apparent in Georgia's time of possession and average starting position in each of the quarters.” OR unless cited.
Yes check.svg Done
  • Refs not filled in properly and inconsistently. Also when referring to the VT website or ESPN I think it's more professional to put "publisher=Virginia Technical University/ESPN" rather than the ubiquitous *.coms
Yes check.svg Done Can you point me towards some specific examples of inconsistent citations? The .coms I use for clarity and brevity -- they're coming from the websites of the respective publications (ESPN, for example, operates several television channels, a magazine, the website, and dozens of radio stations). For the Virginia Tech Media Guide citations, I've already given the full citation, so I eliminate the repeated information for brevity purposes.
In some parts you have listed the things as "ESPN's preview", whereas in other places it is "Title, ESPN.com" [in some cases the publisher is incorporated into the title]. The date formats are not all the same (some are "april 3" and others are yyyy-mm-dd, and in some places, there are dates in teh news article but it is not filled out in the wiki article (9, 10 16 and maybe some others I didnt check). Oh and for the authors, you need to put "King, Randy" and so forth. It's probably easiest to use a citation template for automatic consistency. Link1 doesnt work. Another instance is #34 shows the wire service instead of the name of the newspaper. I think it is standard to credit the newspaper rather than the specific wire service.
Okay. I think I've got them all. Take another look and let me know if I missed any.
Okay it looks better now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The content is thorough, it only needs to be cited in more detail and presented more cleanly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a positive sign that even as someone relatively unfamiliar with the subject (I assume that's the case... I have difficulty with cricket, but IR DUM), it was relatively clear. Please let me know if that's not the case. JKBrooks85 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The progress is good though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if that youtube video is some guy taping the TV broadcast and then putting it on YT, I don't think you should link to it. I don't think that's allowed. (some people post cricket videos up there and it still has ESPN tags on it. That seems like copyvio and we shouldnt link there)

Yes check.svg Done JKBrooks85 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think only the paras need the cite put on the end of them now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Wooo... I think that's it! Let me know if there's anything else. JKBrooks85 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it passes now. As for FAC, they are stringent on MOS, formatting consistency and prose. You'll probably want to reorder things: In newspapers they say " "sdfsadf" said coach....." I think in encycopedias they normally want things the other way round: Mr XJDD said that " sdfasdfda". But anyway, they'll probably insist on more austere wording I think. And also, another thing, use ndash in those scores, that's what I was taught: 31nash24 and so forth. I think you should proabbly talk to Deckiller (talk · contribs) he has about 10 FAs and some were about NFL. He also knows how to copyedit really well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mohamed Massaquoi[edit]

Article has typo'ed his name twice in two contiguous sentences, first as Mohomed Massaquoi and then as last name Massquoi. Normally not an issue, but the listed ref is the original source of both typos. Since it's not a direct quote, [sic] isn't an issue. Is there any sort of flagging needed for a badly written ref that would conflict with its associated content spelling? Michael Devore 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I've fixed both misspellings in the article. Thanks. JKBrooks85 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A Peach Powl?[edit]

Who says it was ever called Chick-fil-A Peach Powl? It doesn't appear anywhere in this article, at Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, or anywhere in google. Perhaps it's a little joke? Mr Stephen (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn strange. I don't remember misspelling that, and if I did, I'd think the Featured Article review would catch it. Hmm... either way, it's been fixed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

FA[edit]

Odd that this got to FA and no-one noticed that the COUNTRY is not even mentioned (well, it is now, because I just added it). I've noticed this so many time in Wikipedia articles: ones that originate from/ are about countries other than the US almost always state the country, but American ones generally don't bother. Is this a reflection of American parochialism, not looking beyond their borders, not realising there's a whole world reading out there, most of whom won't have a clue where the places they talk about might be? Or are we all supposed somehow to know all about American geography, even though this is never expected of articles on other countries? An encylcopedia is supposed to be ENCYCLOPEDIC and to educate. 86.137.136.17 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This came up during the FA process, and it was decided then that the qualifier "American college football" in the opening sentence would tell readers that this was indeed played in the United States. I've got no problem adding United States after Atlanta, but it has been a topic of conversation before. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was such a meaningless bowl game chosen as a featured article? Fnorth (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Any article can be a featured article. It only takes the willingness of one or a few editors to bring it up to featured status. From there, getting it on the Main Page is mostly a matter of good timing, addressing a subject that hasn't seen much coverage on the Main Page, and having people agree that it's worthy of inclusion on the front page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent job. I only hope that other sport-contest articles will follow suit. Wrad (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a couple other single-game articles that are in the cooker. One's waiting for a GA review, and others are in various stages of completion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

General description required[edit]

Great article. One failing though, is that those unfamiliar with US sporting competitions are not given an initial description of what it is. "Chick-fil-A Bowl" means very little (mystifying!) to those not in the know.

thanks163.189.217.40 (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Once this is off the Main Page and the flood of vandalism dies down, I'll be sure to put American football or college football in the first one or two lede sentences and see if there's anything else I can do to make it better. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Edition[edit]

Really, is "edition" the best word to use in the lead? —ScouterSig 15:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. This is what it should be:
"The 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, was an edition of the Chick-fil-A Bowl, formerly known as the Peach Bowl and the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, was a college football match between .... and ..... on ....."
I've crossed through the words which should be removed. EDIT: I decided to change the sentence structure to make it more understandable.JoshHuzzuh  Talk  16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. I changed the wikilink to the college football page rather than American football, but it reads a lot better now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we get the wording changed on the main page too? —ScouterSig 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed on the Main page. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (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) 16:28, 13 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) 16:29, 13 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) 16:29, 13 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) 16:29, 13 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) 16:29, 13 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) 16:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)