Talk:2006 Gator Bowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 2006 Gator 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 January 2, 2012.
WikiProject United States / Louisville (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject College football (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Long lead[edit]

The lead has seven paragraphs right now. It should be trimmed to at least four paragraphs per WP:LEAD.--Crzycheetah 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so according to that guideline, the paragraphs need to be combined, then. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2006 Gator Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Any comments are welcome LegoKontribsTalkM 04:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs pictures, per #6 in the Good article criteria. Flickr might be a good place to look. Okiefromokla complaints 16:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, pictures are not required for an article to be GA. It is recommended, but not required. Nikki311 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Review[edit]

I'm going to be doing the GA review for this article. I've only skimmed it thus far, but here are some things to fix:

  • The lead is supposed to be no more than four paragraphs. It is a technicality that can easily be fixed by merging the small middle paragraph with one of the other ones.
    • Done.
  • Image:ToyotaGatorBowl.jpg is not low resolution (far from it, actually) so it needs to be scaled down.
    • Done. Reduced to 25% resolution of previous version.
  • In the game summary, each quarter ends with a short one sentence paragraph. Merge those into the paragraph above in each instance.
  • Statistical Comparison --> Statistical comparison
    • Done.
  • RE Images (above): Like I said, pics aren't required, but they really would add to the article. Have you checked Flickr? Just images of a few of the key players would be good, they don't have to necessarily be from this game.
    • Yeah, I have. It's tough sometimes to find pictures with CC-appropriate licenses. If I decide to push this for FA status, I'll put a call out for photos on a few Virginia Tech and Louisville football fan sites. That tactic served me well for 2007 ACC Championship Game.
  • In Final statistics, there are a couple of instances of the refs not being in numerical order ([68][58]), so make sure to fix those and check the whole article for other instances.

I'll go more in depth into the text when I have a bit more time. Nikki311 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've finished copyediting the article (and knocked off one of the above as I completed it myself). I didn't find any grammar, POV, or any other major errors. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow for the minor improvements listed above. Nikki311 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I know about using the same citation again, but all you have to do is switch the ref order. It wasn't a big deal (only occurred twice), so I fixed it myself. Great job on everything else, though, so I'm going to pass the article. Nikki311 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments[edit]

Comments posted here in an attempt to prevent a large unwieldy FAC page.

Looking at this page as a limey ignoramus, there are plenty of things that make it hard to follow for someone who knows little about the sport. Some of this is difficult to avoid, but well placed wikilinks can be particularly valuable.

  • First up is the question "why is this game important?" Postseason is an easter egg link to bowl game, so the link which ought to explain it isn't obvious. Now this isn't your fault, but bowl game doesn't help to give an immediate understanding as its lead is full of ifs and buts. If someone could improve the lead to that article it'd help, because its the sort of thing people like me will need in order to understand this one. So after reading bowl game a couple of times, I see that it is a game between two teams who have won at least six matches. So this isn't a championship game, but it is more than just a friendly match. It seems odd to have a special occasion for 12th versus 15th, but that must be a culture thing.
  • It is darned odd, and there are a lot of people advocating for a different system, but that's another argument entirely. I've switched the order of a few sentences in order to bring the season-finale aspect upward and removed that easter egg by putting bowl game in plaintext. I'll see about revising that article.
  • "A 10–2 regular season" - through familiarity with ice hockey I know what this means, but a lot of people won't. Is there a suitable wikilink that could be added?
  • I've put a Wikilink, but I'm not sure how useful it will be.
  • Acronyms should always be spelled out on first usage.
  • Could you point me toward the ones you were looking at? I checked the most obvious ones: ACC, BCS, etc. and didn't see anything.
  • There's quite a bit of passive voice in the article. i.e. "Louisville had won its last five games before the Gator Bowl and had participated in the Liberty Bowl at the end of the previous season." could become something like "Participants in the Liberty Bowl at the end of the previous season, Louisville entered the Gator Bowl on a five game winning streak" In other words, getting rid of words like "had" and "was" where omitting them would not hamper understanding.
  • I completely agree. Passive voice seems to come more naturally to me when I'm writing, and I've been trying to break myself of that habit. I still have far to go.
  • The 2006 Gator Bowl was played on January 2, 2006 at 12:30 p.m. EST - over-specific, particularly as it lasted more than a minute.
  • How about "started"?
  • Tech was only able to answer with a field goal, - a bit informal for an encyclopedia
  • Reworded.
  • What do the AP - Coaches - BCS boxes mean in the infobox?
  • They're the different polling systems used to determine national ranking; there are Wikilinks for each one, but do you think it's worth the time to explain the polls further?
  • "In the 2005 college football season, the Atlantic Coast Conference had an automatic bid to the Gator Bowl that allowed the Gator Bowl Association to have the first pick of bowl-eligible ACC teams after the winner of the ACC Championship Game was given a spot in a Bowl Championship Series game." - A 50-plus word sentence that means nothing to me without clicking on at least three wikilinks.
  • This one's tough for me to express unless I can count on the reader to either have some sort of knowledge about the sport already or be willing to click on Wikilinks. I've broken it into two sentences and added a new Wikilink, so take a look and let me know what else I should do to make this more readable.
  • The Virginia Tech Hokies football team began the 2005 college football season having won the Atlantic Coast Conference championship the previous year. - Would "began the 2005 college football season as reigning Atlantic Coast Conference champions" parse in American English?
  • Much better than my clumsy prose. Fixed.
  • Any doubts about the Hokies' effectiveness were put to rest in their second game of the season - sounds POV, and isn't stated in the reference.
  • Reworded.
  • In a poll of media members covering the Big East prior to the 2005 season, Louisville was picked to win the Big East championship its first year in the conference. Might be best to use a word like "predicted" to make it clear that the actual winner isn't chosen by media poll.
  • Excellent suggestion. Done.
  • "At kickoff, the weather was mostly cloudy with a temperature of approximately 76 degrees. The wind was from the south-southwest at 11 miles per hour (18 km/h)." Sounds remarkably specific. Would it not be sufficient to simple state that conditions were fair/poor and that it was windy/not windy? Oldelpaso (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with you, but for two things: first, those specific measurements were given in the game's box score; second, the terms you've given are somewhat relative. A person living along the coast may consider a 30 km/h wind to be normal. Someone living inland may consider that same wind to be brisk. I try not to translate the source, merely to repeat the information with an appropriate citation. If you think I'm off-base, please let me know!

Thanks so much for giving me a perspective outside of the U.S. It's really helpful in deciding which aspects of the article are understandable for people with different levels of knowledge about college football. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 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) 17:47, 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) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)