Nominator(s): –Grondemar 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl was the Connecticut Huskies's last bowl game win. Following their loss in the 2011 Fiesta Bowl and their head coach Randy Edsall leaving for another head coaching job, perhaps it now represents "happier times". This is the second nomination of this article at FAC; all actionable opposes from the previous review have been addressed, and User:Giants2008 was kind enough to provide a copyedit. The article's "Aftermath" section has also been updated with information from the 2010 college football season and beyond.
Note: Although I am a participant in the 2011 WikiCup, I will not be claiming any points for this article as the vast majority of work on it was done last year. –Grondemar 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. (Well, earwigs showed two known mirrors, but they were garbled obvious derivatives) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments – As stated in the intro, I had a minor role in copy-editing this; in particular, I concentrated on the excess links that were an issue last time. Here are a few thoughts on the article as it stands, keeping in mind that I've looked through almost all of it before.
There are likely still some elements related to the selection process that have jargon in them, but simplifying them would be difficult, as the system really is as complicated as it sounds. I don't know how much can be done without a large removal, which I'm not sure is for the best.
For the source concern, there's an easy remedy: the Sports Reference people (whose sites have passed muster before) have a new college football page. All the content cited by the questionable source is covered in the respective team pages.
Aftermath: This has seen some expansion since the last FAC. The one thing that sticks out is a space before reference 99 that should be removed; other than that, the additions look okay.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, Giants. I tried rewriting part of the bowl selection process prior to resubmitting, but I'm not sure what else can be done to simplify; as you say the process really is that convoluted. I fixed the extra space and will replace the CFDW references later today. –Grondemar 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The CFDW references have been replaced as requested. –Grondemar 05:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Tony. I could... but do you really think that adds value to the article? Why would a reader of the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl article really care about the specific date these games were played? I would need to find additional sources as well since the cited source does not mention the specific date of the games. –Grondemar 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
facts like "41st nationally in rushing offense and 46th in passing", "76th in total offense and 96th in scoring" and "91st nationally" could use inline citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Those facts are all covered by the next-appearing inline citation (currently Ref 67), which appears a sentence or two later because it covers multiple sentences. –Grondemar 04:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.