Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Hawai'i Bowl/archive1

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

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] 2007 Hawaii Bowl

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have conferred with other editors and they believe this article is worthy of FA consideration. PGPirate 06:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, well written article, tells me everything I would need to know about the subject. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 12:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, I have a number of issues with the article before it could be considered FA worthy, in my opinion...
  • Title is "2007 Hawaii Bowl", "Hawaiʻi Bowl" is also used. The naming should be consistent throughout the article.
  • You've cited the spread betting in the lead but not "Many viewers believed East Carolina to be large underdogs." - firstly I don't like "large underdogs" and secondly this needs multiple citation or one stating, as you have, many viewers...
    • Doing... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The spread betting in the lead say 12 1/2, in the infobox it's 10 1/2...
  • Ensure there are no spaces between citations and text/punctuation (e.g. [3] in the infobox).
  • See WP:HEAD - "Selection Process" should be "Selection process".
  • "... and has suffered ..." tense change.
  • " the ninth-highest totals in the nation." needs citation and context - including NFL?
    • Doing... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "...all-purpose yards ..." for FAC this needs to be accessible to all - this is a little bit jargon really, needs explanation.
    • I wikified all-purpose yards, do I need to further explain it in the article? You say "this needs to be accessible to all", is there a cite that the general population cannot read. All cites should be free for everyone to read.
      • No, what I meant was the jargon made it difficult for a non-American football officianado to understand. Wikilinking helps. When I re-review I'll try to point out anything else I find... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celsius). " - use the {{convert}} template for this.
  • I'm not keen on the short paragraphs each cited with the same reference for the match summary sections. I know it's a match report but the really short paragraphs and short sentences make for awkward reading. 23 paragraphs? Too much for me. A lot of work should be done on flowing these paragraphs together to improve the prose and hence readability.
    • Doing... ?
  • "With the ensuing point after..." reads strangely (to me).
  • Should use hyphen for yardage (e.g. 41-yard line, not 41–yard line) per WP:HYPHEN.
    • Doing... ?
  • " 5 minutes and 53 seconds" vs " two minutes thirty-seven seconds " vs "three minutes, 59 seconds "- be consistent.
    • Is there a preferable format? Or can I choose what I want and just stick to it?
      • I don't believe so. Just stick to numbers less than or equal to ten in words. Be consistent with comma separation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Scoring summary doesn't seem to render correctly for me (the right hand edge is missing on expansion) - I'm using IE7 under XP.
    • I did not complete that table. I do not know how to fix it.
      • Perhaps you should seek out the original author? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Time of final field goal is 0:00 in table and "four seconds remaining" in the text.
    • The play began with four seconds remaining, and ended at 0:00
      • I understand, but does the normal reader? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Statistical Comparison" why double caps? Same for "Individual Leaders".
  • Citations should be in numerical order (currently you have [38][37]).
  • Ensure all "Retrieved on" are filled in correctly (so they generate readable dates).
    • I put all the dates in the correct format (xxxx-xx-xx). For some reason, it works for some cites and not others. I do not know what happened.
      • Perhaps some more work here... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Some of the templates wikilink the access dates and some don't. It's a giant pain in the rear end. Karanacs (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Check dead links, there are at least two.
• That's what I have so far. Let me know if I can explain or re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose is very choppy and needs a little more tender loving care. Reference formatting is an issue, and I have some concerns over the reliability of certain sources used. Here are the details:**Needs a copyedit - some parts of it seem too informal, such as "big underdogs" and "good enough", there is some repetitive phrasing, and there are obvious typos like "a offensive shootout" instead of "an"

-I used the term "big underdogs" because it came from the cite I used.

• • In the lead, I think the host school wikilink should go to the overall Hawaii football team, not the 2007 edition (because no Hawaii Bowl game has ever featured the 2007 Hawaii Warriors) ;)
  • I would wikilink to Conference USA and the WAC in the selection process section
    • Even though they are wikilinked in the first paragraph?
  • Need a reference for the fact that it was the first time the two teams had ever met
  • The game recap section is full of very short paragraphs. Can they be better merged so that they flow?
  • Need a reference for the fact that Johnson and Avery were voted MVPs
  • The references need to be properly formatted. Each reference should include the name of the publisher. Dates should be wikilinked
    • The dates are in proper format. I do not know why they are not wikilinked. Which refs are missing publishers, I cannot find them.
  • I have doubts about whether the following arereliable sources: ref 2 and ref 3
    • I don't see why these refs are bad. I changed the Aweful Announcing one though.

Karanacs (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.