Talk:1995 Sugar Bowl (December)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

According to WP:HNP, hatnotes should come at the very top of the article. I moved the hatnote above the infobox. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General note: several players were not linked, but have articles (e.g. Torrian Gray). I added links where I saw these, but recommend checking all mentions of specific players to see if they have articles to link. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under team selection, "various polls" links to AP Poll, which is somewhat misleading and maybe easter egg-y, since the AP is just one of such polls. If a link is helpful, maybe it would be best to add a clause such as "for example the Associated Press". Unfortunately, 1995 NCAA Division I-A football rankings doesn't exist yet, which would be the ideal link. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If known, you might include the reason for the SWC's dissolution. It is only mildly related, but since it is mentioned, a reason would be interesting. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Fiesta Bowl hosted the championship game for the 1995 season..." This should probably specify "national championship game" or "Bowl Alliance championship game" for clarity. It becomes clearer from context in the rest of the para, but should be specified in the first sentence I think. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Texas section: "a year that culminated in a 35–31 victory over the North Carolina Tar Heels in the 1994 Sun Bowl and with the Longhorns in a five-way tie for the Southwest Conference championship". I think these clauses should be reversed for chronological reasons. The SWC championship would have been decided before the bowl game. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The game was the 700th victory in Texas football history and marked the first time in Texas' 103 years of football ~~to that point~~ that a game ended with Texas kicking a winning field goal." I'm not sure these word's add much, as it seems clear from context and the use of the past tense. The repetitive use of "that" was a little confusing in my first read. Maybe "first 103 years of football" if you want to be explicit?

Regarding the above mentioned fact about it being Texas' first game-winning field goal, I found it so interesting (and improbable) that I decided to double check to make sure the cited source was correct. Turns out, it is true, but most sources qualify it with wording such as "on a final play" (See here). Relooking at the article, I now see it does say "game ended with", but that may be a little vague. Can you possibly clarify this point? Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Virginia Tech section: "But Miami's bowl hopes evaporated after the NCAA announced Miami would be put under sanctions for rules violations." Like the SWC dissolution, this is only tangential, but it might be informative to note exactly what rule violations. If it doesn't require too much elaboration. If it requires a lengthy explanation, it may indeed be better to leave it out. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Pregame buildup: "In exchange for playing in the game, each team received $8.3 million. Thanks to revenue-sharing agreements, Virginia Tech received $3.5 million, minus expenses, for playing in the Sugar Bowl." I don't understand this part. Does that mean Virginia Tech was paid $8.3m, but had to then give out $4.8m? If so, to whom? Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, if the Hokies were playing Texas in Sarajevo, they'd have sold their allotment of 15,000 tickets and asked for more ... as they did here." Good quote. Perhaps Sarajevo should link to Siege of Sarajevo, since that was the implication? Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Off-field problems: Why is Keith Short (red) linked? Other players without articles aren't linked, and I don't mind red links, I was just curious if there was a reason. As an aside, are you familiar with the alternate links template? It can be useful for linking individual bowl games, among other things, that don't yet have articles without displaying red links. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game summary: Recommend "first first down" (two instances of this) -> "initial first down" Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "post-touchdown kickoff" is used several times. I say, link the first instance of kickoff and remove "post-touchdown". Should be clear from context and understanding of term kickoff. Previous text describes the types of score that resulted, and when in the middle of a quarter, it is clear it isn't a kickoff to open the half. The term seems redundant to me, but you might disagree. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third quarter: "The kick was returned to Texas' 32-yard line, and on the first play from scrimmage..." Passive voice generally should be avoided, and I don't see a reason for its use here. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under 1996 NFL Draft: "As the final game of the 1995 college football season for Texas and Virginia Tech, the 1995 Sugar Bowl provided a final opportunity for players to hone their skills on the field prior to the next NFL Draft." Don't you think it was more beneficial that they demonstrated rather than honed their skills? One extra game probably did not do much to hone their skills, but it did provide an additional platform for them to impress scouts. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. I'll put the review on hold in the meantime. Strikehold (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been addressed, so I'll promote to GA. Strikehold (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]