This is an immediate renomination of an American college football GA-class article. It failed the previous nomination because no one bothered to leave comments. A few people pitched in to make minor copyedits and style changes, but no one bothered to support or object to the article. This is (I believe) a well-written article that follows WP:MoS and the unofficial single-game FA style precedent for college football games set by 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl. Please look at the article and support it if you think it is worthy. If not, please let me know what I can fix to gain your support. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Shouldn't the name of the article be "2007 ACC championship game" per WP:TITLE? AreJay (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I originally thought as well, but as it turns out, it's a proper noun in all of the "official" pages that I've come across. The most common usage on the official Atlantic Coast Conference is "Dr. Pepper ACC football Championship Game," but ACC Championship Game is also commonly used. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Support – This article is comprehensive, factually accurate, and more than worthy for FA status. One thing, however, I might consider doing is reference the lead section. I know things like that can pass (one perfect example would be the featured list I worked on), so unless there's a huge outcry to have it done, I guess it's good as is. Good work on this article! CrdHwk (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak ObjectSupportThe article is well on its way but has a lot of work that could be done for improvement.
Is it standard for football game articles to take so long to get to the game summary.
Yes, it is. See 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl for the example. It's an FA-class article that made it to the front page using this style.
I would link the first usages of terms like, touchdown, Orange Bowl and quarterback in the lead.
If extra point kick, point after touchdown or P.A.T. has a link link it. There may be a link for rematch.
In selection process, I think seasons should be linked to NCAA DI seasons.
Sealed momentum is not correct.
Fixed. Both of those weren't verifiable, so I replaced them and added a citation.
Pre game buildup, I do not understand why Miami or Charlotte would lead to better attendance. What were the 2005 and 2006 attendances and locations?
Tampa or Charlotte. They were all in Jacksonville. I've added the justifications -- the distance between Jacksonville and the participating schools, high travel costs, and so on. I'm not sure why they think Tampa would get better attendance... but Charlotte is an obvious choice because of its proximity to most of the ACC schools.
The first picture caption could be more concise. Maybe eliminate the last sentence.
Done. I was trying to use it as an example of poor attendance at the game, but if you think it speaks for itself, I don't have a problem taking it out.
Which were the three years the championship game was held in Jacksonville.
Fixed. I changed it to "two previous years" and put the years.
The following are either unlinked or not linked at the first usage, freshman, pass (forward pass), running back, rushing (rush), receiving (reception), linebacker, interception, sports lllustrated, cornerback, defensive end. Kickoff, national anthem, marching band coin toss, veteran, soldier, referee, field goal, tackle, punt, punter, first down, wide receiver, special teams, total offense, kicker
Many ungrammatical commas. When a dependent and independent phrase are conjoined by and there is no comma used. E.g., “The game was broadcast on ABC, and netted a television rating of 4.1.” has no comma because netted a television rating of 4.1 is dependent on the subject in the independent phrase. Unless each phrase has its own subject a comma is not necessary. I.e., either change it to “The game was broadcast on ABC and netted a television rating of 4.1” or “The game was broadcast on ABC, and it netted a television rating of 4.1”
Fixed that particular issue. Working on copyediting other instances.
Here is at least two more "The 24-yard reception was his longest catch of the day, and gave the Hokies a lead they would not relinquish for the rest of the game" " recorded nine tackles (one for loss), and caught the game-ending" I only did a search on ", and"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Colloquial phrases such as three-and-out possession, shared time under center, need more explaining, linking or rewording.
Working on it.
If you want to link under center to center, make sure the phrase is explained there.
Because the MVP award is not traditionally given to a losing player, however, Glennon was awarded Most Valuable Player honors over Ryan. Should be cited or removed. It is speculation or WP:OR as to the reason without a source.
Removed. If I can find a cite for it, I'll cite it.
Final statistics section is virtually unlinked. The article is long enough that second usages might be linked here so that is not unlinked if that is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The difference between GA and FA for this article will be largely the prose. The following fixes are still needed:
Better section name is needed than "selection process". Teams aren't "selected" like a bowl game or the NCAA basketball tournament; they qualify based on being the best team in each division. Given the scope of the section, a better name would be "Background".
"Off-the-field discussion primarily circled around low ticket sales and the possibility that future ACC Championship Games could be held in Tampa, Florida or Charlotte, North Carolina due to continued low attendance at the Jacksonville site." Sentence needs soem help. Its redundant and could be condensed some.
In general, theres some rather loose prose that could benefit from some serious copyediting. The tone is somewhat informal in many places, such as phrases like "On the opposite side of the field, " and "On the ground," and several other places. The article as a whole presupposes a certain level of familiarity with the game of football, and the tone is more appropriate to a sports page of a newspaper or Sports Illustrated than an encyclopedia article. I would highly recommend seeking out help from the League of Copy Editors and especially trying to hunt down a copy editor who doesn't know ANYTHING about football; they would tend to be able to read the article with a critical eye and help improve the prose where people like me, being familiar with the game, would miss it. If you want some specific suggestions, I have some people who worked on some football FA's for me who would be quite good. Ask me at my talk page, and I'll recommend some good copyeditors... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed your first two suggestions and have left a message on your talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten someone to take a look at it, and he suggested some changes that have been made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. This article is well written, and everything that has been brought up has been fixed. PGPirate 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments. I've done a copyedit, and I think the prose is much improved. I removed a lot of the more casual terminology and some of the repetition. However, there is still a lot of repetition that could be addressed. For example, the causes of poor ticket sales are mentioned multiple times, as is the fact that the game could move from Jacksonville. (I am a college football fan, by the way, so I may have also overlooked some word choices that could confuse non-fans.)
There are several instances of quotes from ESPN or SI that are cited to VT. Could you track down the original sources?
Should there be a convernsion of mph to km/h and degrees F to degrees C?
The stats section may also be able to be cut down, as some of it is repetitive of what is in the game summary. You may be able to incorporate the records into the game summary.
I'm not sure what this means "one blast kick traveled 55 yards"
Removed. Want to thank you for copyediting the article. It's something that doesn't get a lot of glory, but it's greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Oppose for now - this article is getting very close though. I would like to see someone either fix some things from the automated peer review:
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 55 yards, use 55 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 55 yards.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
I think a few more college-football specific terms could do with linking. For instance, the lead uses the word "returned" and the meaning of that may not be clear. I would wikilink it as: returned. I would do the same for other jargon that does not have its own article or cannot reasonably be explained in this article.
I really like to see references in the lead. In my opinion, it is a convenience to the reader to be able to check a fact the first time they encounter it, rather than having to scan through the article to find the relevant footnote. I know this is not required, so I will not oppose on this basis alone.
In the "See also" section - the first two articles make sense to me to be listed, but the other 4 I am not so sure about. I might remove them and let the Category:2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season take care of these. I won't oppose based on this though.
Fixed that particular issue. Will fix any other suggestions.
For me, I like folks to be able to access the quick-and-dirty information easily, without scrolling down the page. If they need citations and facts backed up, they can go to the appropriate section. For me, at least, it's a matter of ease of use for the people who really don't care about footnotes and want an answer right away. That way, the footnotes are there for the people who want them, but the people who don't want them can also get the information they need, quickly. That's just my opinion, though.
I had hoped that other articles would show up ... I've left them in there for now, but we can see about removing them if you think it's a good idea. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
JKBrooks85, have you been checking with Opposers to ask them to revisit their concerns as you address them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Um... not really. Should I be doing so? I had thought that it was their responsibility to recheck, just as it was mine to fix the problems.JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted the appropriate editors. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak support I still think the article in places could be difficult for someone who is only a casual football to follow it. But the prose is much improved, and the article easily meets all other aspects of the the criteria. I am striking my prior oppose. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Notes: I left sample edits of MOS adjustments needed, please see my edit summaries and ping me when work is done (WP:NBSP, consistency in date linking in citations, and WP:MOS#Captions, same things indicated by Johntex, not yet done). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Support I see nothing wrong with it except for minor issues in wording that may be a bit too technical. JuliancoltonTalk 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.