Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 17 September 2010 [1].

List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games[edit]

List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): –Grondemar 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this list of Connecticut Huskies bowl games meets the featured list criteria. Please review and concur if you agree.

This list is intended to be the capstone to a future Connecticut Huskies bowl game featured topic, similar to the (now-demoted) Virginia Tech Hokies bowl game featured topic. Right now only one of the bowl game articles, 2009 International Bowl, is of featured quality; I plan to improve the other three bowl game articles following working on this list. –Grondemar 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to the reviewers) - 10 entries rule? --K. Annoyomous (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sufficient prose, the 10 entry rule does not apply. And it is also irrelevant whether all bowl games could be at List of college bowl games, because having them in one place would be bad and it's divided after teams (because that is what the reviewer want) and to hell with what the MoS of WP:LIST says. But if he can't vigorously argue his case, then of course it will probably fail. But note we have precedent for letting this stuff pass so luckily we don't have to think about, unless we want to change precedent in which case someone will say "standard changes", and then Grondemar will have to file an RfC for this criteria, and it will likely end in no consensus and that's just though luck buddy! Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of criterion 3b of the featured list criteria is that a featured list cannot reasonably be included as part of another article. In this case, the article in question would not be List of college bowl games, which is a list of bowl game series rather than specific annual games, but rather Connecticut Huskies football, the main article for the Connecticut Huskies football program. I would agree it would be reasonable to include the summary table of games in the main program article; in fact, it is already there. What would be undue weight would be to include the individual game capsules. In my mind this list meets that aspect of the criteria as the game capsules could not reasonably be included in the main program article. I also note two other things: first, that since UConn will in all likelihood be invited to a bowl game every year they have a winning season, this list will continue to grow over time; and second, I don't see any specific mention of a "10 entry" rule in the featured list criteria. I am unfamiliar if this is considered to be an unwritten, colloquial standard, however. –Grondemar 09:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 10-entry rule is not a rule, but in the past the FL community has considered lists with fewer than 10 entries to be "too short" for FL status. However, I encourage reviewers to consider each list individually instead of applying a robotic "standard" to all FLCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was just wanting some feedback on whether or not this "violates" that "rule". It certainly doesn't violate any FL criteria, so let the reviewing go on! --K. Annoyomous (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 04:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose Nothing major on its own, but a lot of concerns- this needed a copy-edit from someone who doesn't follow football.
  • If this were like the Texas Tech one currently nominated, I'd be opposing for 3b and be done with it. However, this follows the Virginia Tech list in structure, and as such the level of richness present here would overwhelm the team's main article-which is already surprisingly long for an article that barely skims over 90+ years of the team's history; so it could clearly be made much longer. (Especially since the prose fails to discuss a national championship!)
  • I agree that Connecticut Huskies football needs to be improved, but even if theoretically that article was improved to featured article quality, there would still be a need for this standalone list for the reasons you mentioned above. See below for the national championship issue. –Grondemar 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms 1-A and 1-AA aren't used anymore by the NCAA. Should we be using them here? (I can live with it, most people know the old terms better than the new.)
  • Okay, that national championship again. How does the second paragraph avoid mentioning it?
  • I'm not sure I understand the issue here; UConn has never won a national championship in American football. The Huskies have won several national championships in men's and women's basketball; perhaps that is what you're thinking of? If not, could you point me to where in the list it indicates that the Huskies have won a football national championship? –Grondemar 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should look things up. My brain was cross wired with UConn and UMass here. Sorry. Courcelles 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backing up, I don't care for the introductory sentence. We really try not to start FL's with any form of "This is a list..." or "The list..." anymore
  • 4th paragraph. Do we have to mention beating South Carolina? (Don't change it. It's just embarrassing for a South Carolinian ;) )
  • The summary table. Three of the four stadiums are just corporate naming deals... did you consider giving the cities instead?
  • I added a column called "Location" to link to the cities; let me know what you think. –Grondemar 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4-way tie for first place; they filled four of the five conference bowl slots." I don't care for the mixing of 4 and four in a single sentence, I must admit.
  • "The remaining slot was filled by Notre Dame, who was not a member of the Big East Conference for football" They're not to this day, so why the past tense?
  • This is in past tense to match the tense of the rest of the sentence. I'll run it by a copyeditor for a second opinion, however. –Grondemar 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game was anticipated to be a high-scoring affair[12]," If we're going to stick a reference in the middle of a sentence, but it after the comma.
  • "The 2004 Motor City Bowl kicked off on December 27, 2004 at Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan." kicked off? Try contested. This isn't Test Cricket, we finish in one stretch here.
  • I meant in this case "kick offed" as in the literal kickoff that is the first play in every American football game; but in any case I changed it to "was played". –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and had to leave the game for good by halftime." Rather colloquial for an encyclopaedia. Try "and did not return following halftime"
  • I changed it to "did not play in the second half". –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 2007 capsule, don't link Orlovsky again, he's linked not four lines up.
  • "Connecticut returned to bowl eligibility in 2007. UConn finished the regular season with a record of 9–3 and claimed a share of the Big East Conference championship." These sentences would flow better as a single sentence.
  • "Their opponent was Wake Forest, the previous year's" Given all the mess about New Year's, can we just go with "season" here?
  • "win over then-No. 12–ranked" We have an endash here, then in the next section, two without endashes and the notes inserted in a different place. Please be consistent.
  • I removed the word "ranked" in all occurences. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like there are general WP:OVERLINK issues with the various positions. The first time they're mentioned is plenty.
  • Ref 11, date consistency with the rest, please.
  • Like I said, nothing major here. This can be fixed within the FLC period; but I do know football, so I'm not sure what someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the sport would think of things I might have glossed over. Courcelles 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replied in part and will work on correcting the other issues. Thanks for the review! –Grondemar 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Please review and let me know if you find anything else. –Grondemar 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lede sentence, the VT list is a 2+ year old promotion; back then, such introductory sentences were acceptable in FL's. I think you're going to need to completely rewrite this sentence, and you're unlikely to be left with any bold text. Courcelles 04:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the lead; please review and let me know what you think. –Grondemar 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't have any 3b concerns because of the level of detail presented here; this would be out of balance on the team's main article. All other issues resolved. (Still, next time, lose to the Gamecocks.) Courcelles 16:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! (If it's any consolation, I'll be rooting for the Gamecocks to take the SEC East this year. If they're ever going to do it, this will be the year.) –Grondemar 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Regarding 3b, I believe that this list could reasonably be included as part of a related article (Connecticut Huskies football). The table already is included in Connecticut Huskies football and the information in this list could be merged into that section of the article where only the table exists now. NThomas (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Huskies football is currently 1658 words of readable prose. List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games has 1417 words of readable prose. Even if the history section (which is most of the readable prose of the article) is doubled in size, it would be unreasonable to have a third of that article taken up by bowl game summaries. Including the full details of this list article in the main team article would be undue weight on a very narrow aspect of the history of the Connecticut Huskies football team. –Grondemar 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3.b is such a joke. You have article like List of New York Yankees no-hitters (B) and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters (A), where B is a complete subset of A. The same goes for the current Watford POY and previous similar lists. The reason why they're allowed? Due to extensive prose written and effort on behalf of nominator. But what is the purpose of lists you ask? it's to make it easy for people to navigate in different wikipedia articles. Therefore they shouldn't be this hybrid of lists and articles just to avoid 3.b failure, but whatever. Sandman888 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I didn't find anything at fault. Sandman888 (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on a second thought, I genuinely believe that extra prose does not make a list meet 3b. The games are all linked so there's no need to c&p a summary of each into a list and then create a spin-off list. Following that logic I could equally split any list of football players into 20 sub-lists by adding prose from the relevant players articles. Perhaps 3b should just be deleted since it doesn't work. Sandman888 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.b changed for the better. However I'm still confused if you can oppose on 3.b or it should be taken to AfD? See the current FLRC on mergers. Sandman888 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure of the game capsules follows the summary style guideline, where the parent article (the bowl game list) links to each of the games while providing a summary of each of the games, beyond what one could get from a single table, in the game capsules section. This is a similar structure to what is done in individual college football season articles—2005 Texas Longhorns football team is an example of a featured article with this kind of structure (along with other sections which aren't applicable to a list of bowl games). –Grondemar 05:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – First off, I think the present structure is about the only way this could meet 3b, given that we're talking about four games. Also, I can't see how putting this much on the bowl game into the team article wouldn't be too much for that article.
  • I don't care for the third paragraph of the lead. The writing is fine, but I don't see some of what is here is relevant to the bowl games. Is it really that important to know that four of their players were drafted high one year? I would rather see a taste of what lies in the body of the article, with some basics on the games themselves. There, something like Donald Brown's MVP performance would be a natural fit in my opinion.
    • The reason that paragraph is there is because I based the lead structure directly on List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. I'll have to think about how to restructure it. –Grondemar 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a new section to the article listing the top 5 performers for UConn in bowl games in three offensive statistics: rushing, passing, and receiving. I changed the third paragraph of the lead to directly reference this paragraph. Let me know what you think now. –Grondemar 07:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2004 Motor City Bowl: Remove space before reference 11.
  • Replace dash in "one–yard" with a regular hyphen. There are a couple more uses like this later.
  • 2007 Meineke Car Care Bowl: "The second half was all Wake Forest" reads like something from a game recap; it's not necessarily the best tone for an encyclopedia page.
  • 2010 PapaJohn's.com Bowl: Another tone concern with "tragic murder". It surely was tragic, but it is a weasel word of sorts.
  • I see no need to abbreviate SEC when it's not used. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Meets FL standards. Note that I'm supporting this one and the Texas Tech list. No one ever said that all FLs in a genre must look the same. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a few points, but enough (for me) to be concerned with immediate promotion... (and my apologies for not being around sooner)
  • Don't worry about the timing, I appreciate your input. I only ask the FL Directors' patience while I respond to the below comments over the next day or two. –Grondemar 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess that since I'm one of the FL Directors, I'll assure you our patience...... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UConn has been invited to a bowl game every year since 2007, a three-year streak" I don't see 2008? And if it's a "season thing", that statement is still confusing to non-experts.
  • I changed it to "UConn has been invited to a bowl game every season since the 2007 season, a three-year streak." College football seasons are customarily referred to by the year in which the regular season takes place; for instance, the 2007 season refers to the season in which regular season games were played in 2007. Bowl games are played following the end of the regular season. Some bowls are played in December, and thus are played in the same calendar year as the regular season games. Other bowl games, however, are played in January; these games, despite the fact they occur in a different calendar year as the regular season games, are considered part of the season of that previous calendar year. For example, the 2009 International Bowl, which was played on January 3, 2009, is considered to be part of the 2008 season rather than the 2009 season. This is due to the fact that the team rosters are the same from the end of the regular season to the bowl game, while the rosters change due to graduation and class year advancement in May-June, and new players coming in in August-September, following standard American academic year cycles. Connecticut played in bowl games at the conclusion of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 seasons; however, two of the bowl games took place in January and therefore are the 2009 and 2010 editions of the games even though they took place during the previous season. To help clarify this, in the main list I put a "Season" column which clarifies which season each bowl game was in. I understand this is confusing; let me know if you think this needs any further clarification. –Grondemar 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Connecticut's first post-season bowl game was in 2004, when the Huskies participated in the 2004 Motor ..." would prefer to not read Connecticut and Huskies in same sentence referring to the same thing. Perhaps "The Huskies first ..., when they participated in..."?
  • Changed as requested. Throughout the article I attempted to rotate "Connecticut", "UConn", and "the Huskies" for the name of the team to reduce repetitiveness. –Grondemar 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attendance records are correct as of the end of the 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season.[4][5]" not sure this is quite the right phrasing for one-off bowl games?
  • To what is the attendance record relevant? Is it the venue? The bowl game? In other words, why isn't 53,126 the attendance record when it's bigger than any of the Huskies' other games?
  • The attendance record is the individual bowl game attendance record (for instance, the International Bowl attendance record). I rewrote the sentence to clarify this. –Grondemar 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, interesting that you link punt but not 4th-down-and-6 play which is far more technical.
  • No need to repeat Orlovksy's first name (unless there was more than one Orlovsky...)
  • Ineffective player: "only able to complete six of twelve passes" (completion 50%), MVP player : "he completed 20 of 41 passes" (completion <50%, but yes, 2 TDs), it's a cruel world...
  • More significant here than the completion percentage is the total number of passes completed as well as the yardage. The fact that Gradkowski was out of the game by the second half while Orlovsky played the whole game also weighs in. Also note that it wasn't me saying that Gradkowski was ineffective; that was from the source (which unfortunately I only got through Lexis-Nexis and can't find online). –Grondemar
  • "fourth quarter off of a field goal and a nine-yard touchdown run" hate, hate, hate that "off of", but realise it could be conventional USEng. Could you dare compromise with "with" or "from"?
  • As far as I know "off of" is accepted US English, but I changed it to "from" which also works. –Grondemar 02:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UConn earned only nine first downs" again (sorry), what's a typical number of first downs?
  • Howard jersey image is a little sad and actually messes up the formatting on my screen of the following section. Is it really worth it?
  • The Jasper Howard jersey picture is intended to be poignant; 2009 was a very emotional and sad season for the Huskies. To fix the formatting issue, I took the marching band picture from the previous section, shrunk it in resolution, moved it to the left, and reduced the caption. Let me know how it looks now. –Grondemar 02:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a bridge too far, but the Stats section, could you make the Player, Pos. and Game column the same width from section to section? I know the remaining columns are different but the ones that aren't would look a lot better (imo) if they were the same size.
  • Refs have a mixture of Pg and p for page number referencing.
  • Fixed—all references should use "p." now. –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESPN references appear to be formatted slightly differently.
  • I checked the ESPN references and they all appear to be correct. I believe what you're seeing is reference 5, which uses {{cite web}} instead of {{cite news}}. The reason that is the page is a publication of the PapaJohns.com Bowl, which is actually owned by ESPN; however, the website is not part of ESPN.com, and therefore really isn't a "news source" per se. The only other difference in the ESPN refs is that some are reprints of the Associated Press or STATS INC (which are indicated by including the wire service's name) and others are ESPN original reporting (which don't have any additional name). –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we avoid all-CAPS in refs, regardless of the original source, so SPORTS->Sports, FOOTBALL->Football...
  • These should all be fixed now, except for STATS INC., which I believe is a company name so should stay capitalized, similar to ESPN. –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If ref 28 & 29 are the same (which they appear to be) you should use ref name.
  • Even though they have the same page title, these references have different URLs; one lists the draft results for UConn, and one lists the draft results for South Carolina. –Grondemar 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 17, 26, 30 through 33 appear to have spaced hyphens when, according to WP:DASH, they should probably be en-dashes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know what I'm about to say is very amateur but I'd like to see some clue for non-experts as to what those bowl synopsis infoboxes mean, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 (these are quarters, right?) and the respective scores in each? All I'm saying is perhaps we need to focus a little harder on non-experts here?
  • The "1,2,3,4" are indeed quarters, and the "Total" column is the final score of the game (computed by adding the scores from the four quarters). The infobox is a standard template; I tried modifying it to show the word "Quarter" above the numbers, but couldn't get it to look right. I'll take another look at it later today. –Grondemar 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to drone on about non-experts, but Europeans (at least, Brits) have no idea what a "losing season" is. I understand from other reviews this is when you lose more games than you win? It would be nice to pamper our non-experts once more with a note or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to "two seasons where they...lost more games than they won". –Grondemar 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Connecticut_Huskies_bowl_games/archive1&oldid=1208113765"