Talk:Super Bowl XXXIV
|Super Bowl XXXIV is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Now why on Earth would this article be in the category "Dot-com"? Removing it, anyone with a reason otherwise can reinstate it. Danthemankhan 22:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Because of the adverts. The game was held during the height of the dot-com boom, so it is unsurprising that many of the adverts during half time were for dot-com companies. Pets.com famously paid millions for an advert featuring a sock puppet. Edward 07:38, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Dot-com advert featuring guys sitting on a porch
Hi. I seem to recall one of the dot-com adverts was two guys sitting on a porch in rocking chairs for about 25 seconds, and then in the last 5 seconds saying something like, "Do we know what we're doing here?" "I sure hope so, we spent a lot of money for this ad." Does anyone remember which company that was? Btw Superbowl 34 was a great game, the Titans QB was awesome. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think I remember that one as well, but like you I can't remember the company. That just proves that it wasn't an effective ad, considering the fact that neither of us can remember then company name :).--J.a.f.a.c. 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Good article review
This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- See the "Commercials" section. How are the company's fates relevant?
- "NY Giants" - this needs to be "New York Giants"
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- "The game featured many great performances from players on both teams" - this doesn't seem to be NPOV.
- "Torry Holt was also a major deep threat" - is this NPOV? I'm not sure
- "The Rams' defense did not get as much attention as the offense, but it was still extremely strong" - may not be NPOV
- "the Rams had 3 extremely talented linebackers" - not NPOV
- "after playing before sparse Houston crowds" - I don't think sparse is NPOV.
- "The 1999 Titans were led by two stars" - maybe not NPOV, not 100% sure
- "McNair was also an outstanding scrambler" - maybe not NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- Looks stable
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- Right now, fail; if you fix these things, it might pass. Sorry for messing up the numbering, that was because of the bullets. Good luck improving the article
Successful good article nomination
- 1. Well written?: Pass
- 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass
- 6. Images?: Pass
Looks like a good article overall. I'm passing it because it meets the requirements and there are no major issues with it. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— jj137 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I see this article is at FAC. However, many of the issues raised there (link) mean it shouldn't be a GA, and I have thus delisted it. Issues such as referencing juvenile non-fiction books, poorly formatted and used references, and prose which really isn't that flash means this isn't GA quality yet. You can ask for a review if you disagree. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with this delisting. Furthermore, I ask that the nominator withdraw the FAC within a few days after you receive a few more comments (I didn't look through the prose, so I might have missed some issues). I suggest you go to peer review afterwards. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a question here - I'm not entirely sure of the official rules, so perhaps someone can explain this or correct me here - but in the 3rd quarter the Titans had a field goal blocked before the line - and it was then recovered by the Rams. Now as I understand it, a field goal blocked before the line is a fumble - so why is this not a fumble recovery (making a turnover)? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, a field goal that is blocked before the line of scrimmage is still literally considered a "blocked field goal", not a fumble. Both are considered "loose balls" that can be recovered by either team. A more recent example that comes to my mind was this blocked field goal return for a touchdown during the 49ers-Vikings game on September 27, 2009; it was still scored as a "return of a blocked field goal", not a fumble return. I think this confusion comes in when some fans and broadcast announcers tend to group any type of "loose ball", "muffed punt" or "turnover on downs" as turnovers, even though they are not officially scored that way. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)