Talk:2002 San Francisco Bowl/GA1

GA Review

Lead

• Don't link the bold title per WP:LEAD.

• Done.

• I'd suggest merging the first and second pars - the second par looks odd at just two sentences long.

• I've expanded that paragraph to include notable opponents for each.

• "Facing the Hokies were the Air Force Academy Falcons," The first line already says they're playing each other.

• Rewritten.

• "in late December" You've alrady said it's December 31. Perhaps change to for late December, and it might make sense.

• Rewritten.

• "In the first seven minutes of the game, Air Force scored 10 consecutive points to take an early 10–0 lead." the second clause of this sentence says the same thing twice.

• Rewritten.

Team selection

• Is 6-6 a "poor showing" It's okay if such words have a reference.

• Changed to "disappointing," the word used in the reference.

• "No. 19 Notre Dame," What does No. 19 mean?

• Rankings have now been explained in the lede along with notable opponents for each team. If it's still unclear, let me know.

• "Tech started the season with a bang," Very informal.

• Rephrased.

• "In its ninth game of the season, however, the Hokies suffered their first loss," Pronouns don't match, first is its, second is their.

• Good catch. Tech is "its," Hokies is "their."

Defensive matchups.

• Air Force is full of short stubby pars. They either need expanding or amalgamating in one par for the time being.

• Collapsed into one paragraph for now.

Game summary

• "The 2002 San Francisco Bowl kicked off at 7:30 p.m. PST on December 31, 2002, in San Francisco, California. The weather at kickoff was clear and cool, with an air temperature of 69 °F (21 °C)." It says cool here, but "unseasonably warm" in the lead. Both could be correct but it needs to be fully explained.

• Changed the lede.

General

• Be careful about giving sections the same name per WP:MOS. I'm not sure there's much you do about it though.

• I've done it in the past, and haven't had any problems, but I'll definitely take that under advisement.

• I think it explains the problems at Wp:MOS. But basically if you have similarly named sections, you cannot link to an individual section. Secondly, if you edit any of the Air Force or Virginia Tech, you end up at the upper most of those sections. But like I said, I'm not sure what you can obviously rename them to. Peanut4 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is good. But I'll put it on hold for the above points to be addressed. Peanut4 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as the Peach Bowl article. Meets the criteria, and good luck with future expansion.

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) 09:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)