Talk:2005 Sugar Bowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 2005 Sugar 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 September 15, 2013.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
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.
 
WikiProject Virginia (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alabama (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Toolbox

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Sugar Bowl Logo.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

File:Sugar Bowl Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 Sugar Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    {{subst:#if:Well done.|Well done.|}}
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    {{subst:#if:The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)|The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)|}}
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    {{subst:#if:In the Post-game effects section, does Reference 65 cover this ---> "and several juniors elected to enter the 2005 NFL Draft as well"?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)|In the Post-game effects section, does Reference 65 cover this ---> "and several juniors elected to enter the 2005 NFL Draft as well"?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)|}}
    C. No original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. Focused (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:Not a problem, but if images can be found, they should be added.|Not a problem, but if images can be found, they should be added.|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.|If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to JKBrooks for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of interesting sources[edit]

I used the AP Poll for citing how USC/OU stayed at the top of the polls all season long, but if you want more, here are some credible sources about brewing problems for Auburn at the end of the season. --Bobak (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review[edit]

I was asked on my talk page for my thoughts on this before it goes it FAC, and I will give a review similar to what you would see there:

  • "In the second quarter, another field goal resulted three points for the Tigers." Always watch out for missing words, just in case. :-) Another issue is the field goal; I think this should be mentioned by the first score. There are redundant earlys when in that sentence, so some work is needed there.
  • Virginia Tech: "the final game of their season that year" could be considered redundant due to "culminating with" preceding it.
  • "With late-season wins over perennial rival 16th ranked Virginia and fellow ACC newcomer ninth ranked Miami..." This could use a couple more commas for readibility.
  • Does the SEC Championship Game have its own article? If so, it wouldn't hurt to link it.
  • Pre-game buildup: The last two sentences of the first paragraph seem directly copied from the lead. A little variation would be nice.
  • Controversy: I'm a BCS-hater, so I will have a lot to say on this. First, please be careful with the title, because Controversy sections can be controversial themselves.
  • The last paragraph of the section is partially inaccurate and should be removed. The true tipping point was the Cal-Texas controversy, where Mack Brown successfully appealed to voters to move them up in the rankings after the team's final game, in effect gaming the system. The reference provided says as much.
  • "Some pundits and fans considered Auburn's slight to stem from..." I'm not sure this works grammatically, and slight is more than a little POV. This system forced three teams to vie for two spots; someone was always going to be left out.
  • "tougher conference schedule when compared to the conference schedules of USC and Oklahoma." Try "tougher conference schedule when compared to those of USC and Oklahoma."
  • Offensive matchups: Jason Campbell's first name doesn't need to be repeated with the running backs. Cedric Humes also doesn't need his first name twice.
  • Italics for the Roanoke Times, which could be The Roanoke Times. Why pipe a link if you don't need to?
  • Can this stubby paragraph about a Tech lineman be moved?
  • Perhaps link the 2000 Sugar Bowl?

I think that should be plenty for now. If/when this reaches FAC, I will definitely review it further. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:27, 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) 02:48, 12 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) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)