Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

College football WikiProject
Information Project page talk College football Portal talk Participants talk 2006 NCAA FBS Season talk 2006-07 Bowl Games talk 2006 Rankings talk Project category talk Master Team Table talk Team images talk Year Page Format talk Departments Assessment talk   •Worklist  •Log Collaboration of the Month talk Peer review talk Notability (proposed) talk Tools Project banner talk Persondata talk WP:CFB Templates talk {{subst:CFBwelcome-project}} talk Photos on Commons Userboxes Project Userbox talk NCAA Teams talk
edit · changes

The peer review department of the College football WikiProject conducts peer reviews of articles on requests. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on. Generally, most reviews will be conducted before nominating an article for Good Article or Featured Article status.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the College football WikiProject. You do not need to be a member of the WikiProject to review an article.

Contents 1 Instructions 1.1 Requesting a review 1.2 Responding to a request 1.3 Archiving 2 Related Items 3 Requests 3.1 Ralphie 3.1.1 Nmajdan 3.2 Johntex 3.3 2005 Texas Longhorn football team 3.3.1 RockMFR 3.3.2 SandyGeorgia 3.3.3 CJC47 3.3.4 VegaDark 3.3.5 Caknuck

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page.
2. From there, click on the "currently" link that appears in red in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~). Also specify if you are going for Good article, Featured article, or neither as this may require different levels of scrutiny.
5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

1. Move the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing the primary page, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Related Items

If there are no article below, or you want more articles, see Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates#Sports for articles currently Good article candidates. You should not approve any article that you were involved heavily in editing or reviewing here, but you could help another article reach GA.

[edit] Requests

[edit] Ralphie

Any comments. I just heavily expanded the article. I'm looking to head for GA and eventually FA once Ralphie IV retires in a year. Any comments or questions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nmajdan

Good start for the article. Not too far away from GA quality. Some quick suggestions:

• Who says being a Ralphie Runner is coveted?
  • Removed this. This part was from before I edited it, and I doubt I could find a source for this, though I did remove the other line with this that "they are like any other sport with tryouts" where I do have a source and some information about how they get to become a handler, but I figured this was about Ralphie and putting that in may be a bit excessive. Though it may be needed for FA? (MECU)
• Is 25 mph normal for a female bison, or does the university have some special criteria for determining the next Ralphie?
  • According to American bison, they can run up to 35 mph, so 25 isn't special. I do have a source that says Ralphie IV was clocked at 20 seconds to run from one endzone to another, doing the conversion math that comes out to about 25 mph. I don't know if they have some special criteria. I think just getting one donated free is half the battle as buying one would be cost prohibitive. Ralphie IV is set to retire in a year so they should be getting another one ready so there will likely be information about that soon. (MECU)
• Need references in the "Pre Ralphie era" section. Mainly the last sentence. Also in the 2nd para in that section.
  • Done (MECU)
• The sentence "Live buffaloes continued to make appearances at CU games irregularly" could use some help. I understand what you're saying but having the word continued and irregulary just throws it off. Maybe something like "Live buffaloes continued to make sporadic appearances at CU games."
  • Agreed. I like using sporadic. (MECU)
• First sentence in Ralphie II doesn't make sense.
  • I added a verb, that should help (I added "made her debut") (MECU)
• There isn't a lot of citations for the older material. I'd like to see a source for the second sentence in Ralphie III.
  • Done. (MECU)
• Is there a wikilink for Senator Lacy?
  • Nope, though I'll leave it redlinked since a state senator is worthy of an article, especially since she passed this important resolution! (MECU)
• Fix the hypens inside of the quote template.
  • I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but there was -- above the quote and I changed into a long dash. Is that what you meant? (MECU)
    • Hmmm..... I could've sworn you had 13-year-old in the second WHEREAS when I reviewed it. But now its just 13yearold. Nevertheless, I think it needs spaces or hypens.--NMajdan•talk
• Facts in the first para in Ralphie IV needs to be cited.
  • I shall work on this. All that will be referenced! (MECU)
• After "1,300 pounds" please provide the metric equivalent per MOS.
  • Done, thanks. (MECU)
    • Per WP:MOSNUM, you should use the same level of precision for these two numbers. You use 1,300 pounds so instead of 589.67 kilograms, you should probably round that to 590. Also, the measurement in parentheses should be abbreviated, so change it to kg. (See here.)-NMajdan•talk
      • Thanks for pointing out how exactly to do that and covering my laziness. --MECU≈talk 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• "The mere existence of Ralphie causes fear in opposing players." I don't know about that sentence from an encyclopedic point-of-view. The players were scared cause its a 1300 pound wild animal and they don't want to be in front of it.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you look at the source for that, the article talks about how some of the opposing players were talking about how they wouldn't go near her at the game, before they had even seen her! I would call that "the existence causes fear", but I do see your point. I guess it's a little homerism on my part, but I do think the sentence can be reworked into something more encyclopedic. Perhaps "Players have stated they were afraid of being run over by Ralphie. Some are even afraid to approach her." Using the same cite? It would tie better with the next sentence that someone actually did get runover. --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your great comments Nmajdan! --MECU≈talk 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johntex

I am curious as to who pays for the upkeep for Ralphie. Does it come out of the athletic department funds? Buying a bison is not that expensive. A calf costs between $1,500 and $2,500 which is about twice the cost of a steer.[1] They eat mostly grass. In fact, they eat a higher percentage of grass than any other large grazer - the domesticated cow requires a higher percentage of nutrient rich feed.[2] You do need a fair amount of space for grazing, obviously.

So, I am thinking the major costs would be in things like vet visits, transportation, etc. In the case of UT's Bevo, the rancher who owns the Longhorn steer offers the steer for free to UT and the rancher still keeps the steer when the steer is not appearing at functions. As far as I know, they pay for all the upkeep and vet bills etc. I think the Silver Spurs pay for the transportation to games and the like - probably with money from donations and appearance fees.

Anyway, I mention all this because it might enhance the article to know more about the financing behind Ralphie.

It is a good article. Keep up the good work. Johntex\^talk 05:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is already addressed, although not to the level of detail you provided above, in the article. Under Ralphie IV, the last paragraph talks about the Ralphie Fund started in 2002 by Stromberg who donated her life savings when she passed. More detailed information about her (Ralphie, not Stromberg) care would improve the article though. --MECU≈talk 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Texas Longhorn football team

Numerous editors have contributed to this article to help it become one of the best and most thorough college-football related articles on Wikipedia. I believe it meets the criteria to be a Featured Article and I am requesting a peer review prior to submission for FA consideration.

This article previously had a peer reveiew for GA and some valid questions were raised. I believe I have addressed all of those by changes to the article or by explanation on the article's talk page. All other questions that have arisen on the Talk page have been addressed. I have also run the semi-automated peer review script to look for potential problems. I have decided to go for FA status rather than another attempt at GA status because the GA process does not seem as suitable for longer articles.

The article is very well referenced, with 121 in-line sources, all of them meeting WP:V and WP:RS. It has undergone a thorough copyedit to look for any spelling, punctuation, formatting, or other problems. Care has been taken to include links to football terms that may be confusing to the non-football fan.

In following the Oklahoma Sooners nomination, I see that there were some objections raised to what was perceived as an overly-positive tone of the article. I am not sure I agree with that comment about the OU article, but I have taken care to review this article to ensure that every positive claim made about the 2005 UT team is attributed to a reliable source.

Another thing that may arise is the question of length. It is difficult to be complete and still concise, especially while taking the time to provide background for a reader who may be less than familiar with the subject matter. Knowing that summary-style is favored for long articles, I did break out most of the content on the 2006 Rose Bowl into its own article. I look forward to further suggestions as to whether any other sections should be broken out or if the length is now appropriate for the subject matter.

I am eager to hear the opinions of other editors on these points, and any others that are raised. I look forward to your thoughts. Johntex\^talk 00:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RockMFR

• A few things I immediately noticed- the paragraph beginning with "The official website of UT football" is entirely useless trivia, should be cut out. In the Ohio State section, it says "two storied programs" - cut out "storied" as it is just fluff. That particular line also does not need three references. --- RockMFR 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review.

For the first comment, I included that paragraph because I believe it is interesting that the UT football program designed a logo specifically to commemorate the win. That is why the description of the logo is included. Johntex\^talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For the second comment, I am mindful that some people who read this article may not be that familiar with college football. Therefore, I felt is was important to point out that UT and OSU are often considered to be among the sports best programs. This knowledge is important to an understanding of why it was a big deal that the two teams faced off against each other. The references cited support the use of the term "storied" to describe the two programs. Johntex\^talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SandyGeorgia

• Why isn't this peer review linked from the talk page? That would make it easier for editors to find their way back here. I was well into typing out a very long list of things that needed to be addressed in your footnotes/references, when I hit an unmarked PDF in a footnote that killed my computer, so I lost everything - that's why you're supposed to identify PDFs :-) So, all I can say is that there are numerous errors in your footnotes - some of the links are dead (you can try to find them in the internet archive), some of them don't have publisher or publication date, some of them have no information at all (I recall something about ESPN that gave no other information and no article link), and some use inconsistent format (most have author last name first, some don't). There was more, but I can't remember it all - so, pls check all your references, and please identify PDFs. Readable prose size of your article is 27KB; there shouldn't be any size objections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia, for your excellent proof-reading and for the improvements you have made to the article. I have now linked this peer review from the article talk page. I will go through the references again for consistency and completeness. Johntex\^talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Another issue is to figure out how to deal with the copyright violations on MackBrownFootball - they use PDF copies of copyrighted media stories, which is a no-no. You should attempt to locate the original sources, to avoid copyvio issues. Per WP:EL, Wikipedia shouldn't link to sites that violate copyright. A number of the sources I looked at on MackBrownFootball were PDF copies of newspaper articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this comment. There is no evidence that MackBrownFootball is violating any copyright. To the contrary, I think it is best to assume good faith and proceed on the understanding that they have permission to host these article reprints. It is very normal for athletic programs to seek and receive permission to host such articles. Therefore, they are not a copyright violation and there is no problem under Wikipedia policy to link to that website. I have no objection if someone wants to search for the original articles elsewhere, but my experience has been that the UT website tends to keep these articles available at the same URL for far longer than most newspapers. Therefore, I don't think it is very productive to look for alternate links. Johntex\^talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The final paragraph needs a copy edit - I didn't review the other prose - it has missing punctuation and sentence fragments:
  • Yince Young's departure set up a competition between Colt McCoy and Jevan Snead to see who would lead the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team. McCoy won the starting job and threw a freshman-record 27 touchdowns This touchdown pass was McCoy's 27th touchdown pass of the season. That tied the national record for touchdown passes by a freshman. in route to a 10-3 season for the Longhorns in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote this when I was up too late at night. I am not sure this paragraph belongs, since it is about the 2006 program. My initial thinking is that including something who replaced Vince Young and what the 2006 result was provides some longer-term view of the team. I will correct the paragraph and leave it in for now, pending other commetns. Johntex\^talk 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CJC47

Nice article, here are my criticisms:

1. Too many citations in some places. I realize the goal of being well sourced, but statements like "This meeting was also the first-ever match-up between the two storied programs" don't eally need 3 citations. Pick the most important one.
2. The game capsules need to be more on point. The OSU capsule doesn't even talk about what happened in the game, the Rice capsule, has one line. Both have a paragraph or more of pregame notes. Baylor and Kansas need to be expanded, as does the Big 12.
3. I think it is missing something about Mack Brown getting the big game monkey off his back against Oklahoma and by winnning the title.
4. Preseason needs to be expanded... talk about what was going on in CFB at the time USC is the big dog, but was TX the favorite to be there? etc...

Thank you very much for reviewing the article and for your feedback.

I would like to disagree only with your first point. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and our goal is for each citable fact in Wikipedia to have multiple citations. This way, if one source becomes unavailable or is called into question, there is always another source to back it up. Even though that fact may seem simple, the phrase "storied programs" has been questioned so multiple sources seemed prudent. I wonder if other people might want to lend their opinion about this point?

I thank your other points are very fair and good. I will work on them.

Thank you again for your help. Johntex\^talk 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now put some work into addressing criticisms 3 and 4. (Please let me know if it still needs work) I'll be back to work on number 2. Johntex\^talk 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have now addressed all these points, excpet number 2. I am still working on expanding the game summaries. Johntex\^talk 08:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Update - I have now made significant expansions to the first 3 game summaries (Louisiana Lafayette, Ohio State, and Rice). I will continue to work my way through each game section with expansions. Johntex\^talk 05:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Update - Missouri and OU now expanded. Johntex\^talk 08:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VegaDark

• "With 5 rushing TDs scored in the Rose Bowl, Texas has 55 for the season, setting a new single-season record (52; 1969 and 1970)." School record or NCAA record?
• "The 2005 Texas team set a new single-season total yards record with 6,657, passing the 2003 team (5,709)." Once again, school record or NCAA record?
• Image:UT Longhorn logo with Texas.gif needs a fair use rationale. All of the current images used that have fair use rationales need to say "I believe this is fair use in the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article because..." it has to specifically say what article(s) it is believed to be fair use in.
• It's scout.com, not scouts.com, for when you mention that the game is considered a classic in the opening few paragraphs
• Is the Big 12 conference template really necessary at the bottom of the page? It is my understanding that if the page isn't linked in the template, then the template shouldn't be there. That template should really only be on the university and athletics pages for each school, aka 24 pages total. All facilities, individual teams, etc. can still be in the Big 12 conference category, but it doesn't need that template.

Hi VegaDark, these are all excellent points. I will put time into fixing them this weekend. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. Best, Johntex\^talk 06:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have now addressed all these points. Johntex\^talk 08:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caknuck

1. The "List of accomplishments" section has several GLARING omissions... No mention of the four players who were named to the AP All-American team. No mention of Vince Young winning the Davey O'Brien Award or the Maxwell Award. No mention of Michael Huff winning the Jim Thorpe Award.
2. The final paragraph of the intro lists the six Longhorns selected in the 2006 NFL Draft. They area again listed in "After the season" section. I'd suggest mentioning that six were picked in the intro, but waiting until the end to name them. After all, that's where the cites are.
3. Devoting a whole paragraph to the UT Web site championship logo is WAY overboard and may be deem crufty. I doubt it will be viewed as "encyclopedic" during a FA review.
4. The article mentions Young declaring for the draft, but fails to note that he had previously stated his intention to return for a senior year (most notably on The Tonight Show). Warrants mention.
5. Further to what VegaDark mentioned about the images... We cannot use the magazine covers in this article. Per the copyright disclaimer, they can only be used in articles about the magazine, not about the person (or team) depicted thereon. Plus, the Texas Football cover image has the incorrect copyright tag.
6. The Big 12 Championship section mentions the victory gave the Horns a "...fourth consensus national championship in football." This is wrong. The consensus championship wasn't awarded until after the BCS title game. After the Big 12 title game, Texas was still ranked second.
7. Finally, I suggest amending the schedule table to indicate which games were conference games.

Let me know if you'd like additional feedback. Caknuck 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Caknuck, thank you very much for reviewing the article. I will be working to address all your points except your point number 5. Fair use images are not limited only to articles about the image. This is a common misconception. The policy states "...specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". They are therefore not limited exclusively to an article about the magazine. Instead, they are limited to articles OR sections of articles where the image is specifically discussed. The entire article does not have to be about the image or the magazine.

For an example of this, please see Battle of Iwo Jima. The whole article is not about the flag-raising picture. The whole article is not even about the flag raising event. Never-the-less, we can justify using the flag-raising image in the article. We also have fair-use justifications provided for using this one image on several other articles as well.

In the case of the UT article, all the images are specifically discussed in the article. Therefore, they can all qualify under fair use. Johntex\^talk 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding point 3, I am listening for other comments on this. You are the second person to say it should go, but I still think it adds something to the article. Pehaps the use of the capitalization (which is found in the original) is making this paragraph stand out non-proporitonaly. I will edit that, but I am not deleting the paragraph at this time. If more people say they don't like it, it will be easy enough to delete later. Johntex\^talk 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have now addressed or spoken to all your points. Please let me know if you notice any other areas for improvement. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)