Talk:1986 Peach Bowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 1986 Peach Bowl 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.
WikiProject College football (Rated GA-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.
 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.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1986 Peach Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Lead
  • It's probably a little on the long side per WP:LEAD.
Removed excess information, combined paragraphs.
  • "The 1986 Peach Bowl was a post-season American college football bowl game between the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Wolfpack from North Carolina State University at Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia on December 31, 1986." Think it would be better to say "played at"
Rephrased.
  • "Virginia Tech's first bowl win in school history came in a dramatic 25–24 win over the North Carolina State Wolfpack in the 1986 Peach Bowl." What's the point of this sentence? It's all repeated above surely?
Removed.
  • "The Owls," who are the Owls?
Clarified.
  • "Virginia Tech came into the game with a 9–1–1 record that included an unusual forfeit win over the Temple Owls. The Owls, who used an ineligible player, won the game on the field, but later forfeited the victory to Virginia Tech." I think these sentences can be combined to avoid one sentence ending with the same words as the next sentence starts with. Peanut4 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Combined.
  • "Facing the Hokies in the 1986 Peach Bowl were the 18th-ranked Wolfpack from North Carolina State University." Again all repeated above. What does this add?
Removed extra Peach Bowl information -- the rest adds ranking information and full name.
  • "The 1986 Peach Bowl kicked off on December 31, 1986 at Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia," All repeated above once again.
  • "to give Virginia Tech a 25–24 win." Scoreline repeated for the third time.
Removed.
Team selection
  • Why is the first paragraph necessary? Surely this is at Peach Bowl? Perhaps a much shorter summary may be used here.
It's necessary to explain why the Peach Bowl was in dire financial straits and to give background to the reader. It should go into more detail at the main article, but I thought it was at least necessary to mention these facts, as the 1986 game was really the turning point for the bowl.
  • "In the days leading up to the Peach Bowl, at least one sportswriter called Virginia Tech's 1986 football season a "season of surprises."" At least one sounds very vague. How many writers did call it this?
I'm not sure how many writers used those exact words, which is why I said at least one; other writers made similar remarks without using the exact words, but I don't have access to all the sources that I'd like, so I'm not sure if they said the same thing or not.
  • It still looks vague. I think it needs a slight tweak. For the time being, it's probably best to stick to what you know at this point. Peanut4 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "The takeover by the chamber of commerce proved to be a successful one, as the 1986 game made a small profit. This was an improvement over the three previous Peach Bowls, which lost more than $170,000.[3] The sellout also confirmed that the game would continue to be held annually instead of being abandoned, as sportswriters had speculated prior to the 1986 game.[4][5]" Should this not be in post-game section?
Moved. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I put it there.
  • "Those losing seasons also resulted in the firing of head coach Tom Reed and his replacement by Dick Sheridan." Sounds a bit clumsy, I would suggest "to be replaced by Dick Sheridan."
Rephrased.
  • "they suffered a lopsided 59–21 loss" Why was it lopsided?
The followup quote explains.
  • "On November 8, however, NC State traveled to Charlottesville, Virginia, to play the Virginia Cavaliers." Why however?
Removed.
Pregame buildup
  • "Tech defensive end Morgan Roane was also suspended from playing, but for unknown reasons." Why are they unknown? Are they still unknown?
Yeah ... rephrased.
  • "No. 3 tackler" Is this third-rated tackler?
Rephrased.
  • Special teams section probably only needs to be one par. It looks odd with that second par.
  • "Virginia Tech's special teams set a school record with four blocked punts during the regular season." Have you got a reference for this?
I've removed that second paragraph. That fact was mentioned in the game broadcast (I've got a copy), but I wasn't able to find a text attribution for it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Game summary
  • "The 1986 Peach Bowl kicked off at 1:05 p.m." It should say the date here. It's nowhere else in the main body of the article.
Added.
  • "That play was a short run to the right, and on the next play, NC State picked up the game's first first down with a rush up the middle by fullback Mal Crite." I think you can break this sentence between the different plays.
Done.
  • "Two plays later, Virginia Tech crossed the goal line and scored the game's first points. The touchdown and extra point made the score 7–0, Virginia Tech." Who scored? And how?
Added.
  • "took over on offense" Used several times. I'd suggest trying to reword it.
Reworded. It's only used once per quarter, now.
  • "NC State was able to get good field position during the kickoff return," to get is a vague English verb with too many meanings. I would suggest changing it to another, more precise, verb.
Done.
  • Parts of the summary appear to be unreferenced. If it's generally the same one, I would suggest adding it to the end of each paragraph just for clarification.
I'll throw in the play-by-play citations that I've used with the other bowl game articles. I was trying something different here, but it clearly didn't work as well.
General
  • Ensure all scores have endashes per Wp:DASH.
Done.
  • Some dates are linked, others aren't. Current policy suggest dates shouldn't be linked, but consistency is needed on an article level.
Ah ... I see that policy has changed, then. I've been linking them for autoformatting functions. I'll be sure to avoid that now.
  • Ensure all numerals and units are broken by non-breaking spaces, per WP:MOSNUM.
Done.
  • Consider changing the sportsbox and adding/creating a navbox for all the Peach Bowls.
Yeah ... navboxes and I are not the best of friends. My last few attempts to create them ended in disaster, causing more work for other folks, so I've decided to stay away from those for the time being. I agree that one should probably be made, though.
  • That navbox you've added is fine. I've removed the redundant sport box. Peanut4 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a bit to do, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just a couple more points above and it should be fine. Peanut4 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay; let's give this another shot. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Everything done. A good job and a good start to push this towards FAC. I would suggest sending it to peer review for wider contributions first though. It would also benefit from more images.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Peanut4 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 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) 12:16, 7 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) 06:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)