Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 ACC Championship Game

Comments - I really like most of this article, but some rough edges still need to be smoothed out. Here are minor problems I found in a partial run-through.

• A couple of little things in the lead: "The game was the concluding contest of the regular season for both teams". I like "final" better than "concluding". Also, why is a failed onside kick worthy of mention in the lead? I think this is better: "...the Seminoles managed to run out the clock and secure a 27–22 victory."

• Replaced.

• Selection process: Last three words of first paragraph could be changed to ACC.

• Replaced.

• Virginia Tech: "Miami now had" don't think now is necessary.

• Removed.

• Florida State: I'd like to see a citation that says Miami was favored. A simple game recap should do it.

• Added.

• No. 19Florida. You can see this issue.

• Fixed.

• "...the first time they had earned three straight losses since 1983. Earned is normally used in a more positive fashion. Can you replace this with another term?

• Replaced.

• University of Virginia Cavaliers. Why is University of included for this team and no others?

• Fixed.

• Offensive matchups, Virginia Tech: Do we need Michael Vick linked in consecutive sections?

• Fixed.

• Wide receiver linked twice in section.

• Fixed.

• Offensive matchups, Florida State: Do we need receiver and running back linked here after being linked in the previous section?

• Fixed. My main reason for overlinking is that someone with little familiarity with American football might find it more useful that way. I've removed the extraneous up-page links, but left a few more down in later sections.

• In last sentence of section, write No. 10 out as number ten.

• Replaced.

I want to support this article, but would like to see these small problems addressed. More later. Giants2008 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed those. Let me know what else I can take care of. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

;Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Not keen on the parenthesised whole sentences such as "(Bowl games are not considered part of the regular season.) "

• Incorporated into the sentence.

• "No. 9 Miami " - no need to capitalise no., and it'd be better to expand this as something like "number nine ranked Miami"... if that's what you're getting at. I see you've used this kind of expression throughout - it's worth expanding for us non-experts, especially for featured material.

• Replaced. This was actually addressed in a previous review; I'd had to choose between No. 9 or ninth-ranked, so I went to all ninth-ranked. Because numbers over 10 get numerals, I used 15th-ranked and ninth-ranked, where appropriate.

• I haven't got to the section yet, but not sure what direct relevance the Marcus Vick dismissal has to this ACC Game article.
  • No, it's fine. He sounds like an idiot. Keep it in.
    • Ha! That made me laugh.
• Is the attendance citeable?

• It's cited in the first section of the game recap.

• "...lost two ACC contests, (Virginia Tech's only ACC loss was to Miami) the Hokies..." another parenthetic nightmare for me to cope with...!

• Well, not all parentheses are evil. :) I don't mind this one, myself, but if it really bugs you, do you have an alternative in mind?

• It's not big deal but I think you can safely move [42] to next to [43] without too many complaints.

• Done.

• "threw two incompletions" any chance a slight dejargon - "threw two incomplete passes"?

  Fixed.

• "...and had the end of the half stop another possession..." now I'm no expert but I am aware of NFL terminology to a degree. And I don't get this sentence at all!

• Reworded. The end of the first half ended the possession.

• In the caption "red zone" - what is that?

• Wikilinked this example. It's also wikilinked in the "First quarter" section.

• "...and Quarterback Marcus Vick was sacked..." is there a reason that Quarterback is capitalised?

• Nope. Fixed.

• "almost disastrous" a little POV...

• Reworded.

• "The penalties had no effect on the game" - well strictly not true. They had no effect on the final outcome....

• This one made me laugh, too. Fixed.

• "the Most Valuable Player award is not usually given to a player on the losing team." - sounds like WP:OR to me. Got a reference?

• Hmmm... not really. I need to explain why Vick wouldn't be considered MVP, though. Any suggestions?

• "...coupled with ..." + "...combined as..." - one too many!

• Reworded.

• Not sure the subheading in See also of "Other Conference Championship Games" is needed. It's pretty clear from the titles of the articles you're linking to what they are.

• I'd like to think it's clear enough, but someone suggested adding that.

That's it for the moment... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Made those fixes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a perfectionist, however. With that in mind, here are more comments/complaints for you

• Single-digit numbers are supposed to be spelled out per WP:MOSNUM. I see these throughout rhe early part of the article.

• Replaced when doing TRM's ranking fix.

• I still see them in the matchup sections. Giants2008 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sneaky little things. Replaced. Let me know if you catch any more. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I found one more, which I fixed myself. That should be it. Giants2008 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Defensive matchups, Virginia Tech: There are two yards per game statistics in the first paragraph. Should these be given as exact figures with decimals?

• I put down what the source gave me, IIRC. If it's decimals, I'd be happy to use those in the article if you think they're necessary.

• You're right. I looked at the source and replaced them with decimals. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Ellis recorded defensive MVP honors for the top-ranked Hokies". I have a problem with this, since it implies that Virginia Tech was top-ranked, not their defense. I suggest "Ellis recorded defensive MVP honors for the Hokies' top-ranked unit, with (insert relevant stats here)".

• Reworded.

• Defensive line, defensive end, sacks, and linebacker are all linked twice in Defensive matchups.

• Unlinked.

• Third quarter: :... FSU did send in kicker Gary Cismesia for his second field goal of the day". Change to "field goal attempt" Try would work as well.

• Added.

• Fourth quarter, second paragraph: I'd like to see a link for pass interference. Again, we're trying to make this accessable for non-football fans, which you've done a great job of overall.

• Linked.

• "and it appeared to many fans that Virginia Tech still had a shot to make this a close game." Be careful with terms like many. Perhaps a slight re-wording is in order. I also think that shot is a bit informal. Chance is better.

• Replaced.

• "which stopped the clock when incomplete or were complete for a first down". Change "were complete" to "completed".

• Changed.

• Onside kick should be linked here.

• Linked.

• "A successful recovery would give the Hokies another chance at offense." I like "on offense" better.

• Changed.

• Of course teams can recover onside kicks inside 10 yards; they just can't keep the ball. Perhaps add legally?

• Added.

• Post-game effects, Bowl effects: Link BCS Championship Game.

• Linked.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giants2008 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's anything else, let me know! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I made some comments before this FAC which have, on the whole, been addressed. They are on the article's Talk Page. There are still a few problems:

• The second half of the second paragraph of the Lead (beginning Normally), is hard to understand. Can it be simplified?
• Are all those three howevers in the Lead needed: Because the loss was to a Coastal Division team, however, it did not count against Florida State in the Atlantic Division standings. Close losses to North Carolina State and Clemson at the end of the season, however, almost eliminated the Seminoles from contention for a spot in the championship game. Losses by Clemson and the other Atlantic Division leaders, however, gave the Seminoles a second chance and set up an ACC Championship game between Florida State and Virginia Tech.
• I still don't understand Although Virginia Tech made a late-game comeback, Florida State to ran out the clock and secured a 27–22 victory. Should it be too?

• I've revamped the lede slightly to address all of your concerns. Let me know if it works for you now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is a nitpick, The punt allowed FSU to start at their own 46-yard line, - Why the own?

• The field is 100 yards in length, and is divided into two 50-yard halves that join at the 50-yard line. "Own" signifies that the 46-yard line in question is in the Florida State defensive half. If I'd said Virginia Tech's 46-yard line, then it'd be FSU's offensive half. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now. --GrahamColm^Talk 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)