Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Orange Bowl

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 promoted 00:05, 22 February 2008.

[edit] 2008 Orange Bowl

previous FAC (00:08, 31 January 2008)

I must be a glutton for punishment, because here's yet another American college football FAC, this time about this year's Orange Bowl game, held in Miami, Florida at the beginning of last month. It's my personal opinion that this article is of an even higher quality than the one that just passed (2007 ACC Championship Game), and I hope the passage of this article will go a bit smoother. It does need at least one person unfamiliar with college football to review it and point out the places where things aren't so clear, but other than that, I feel that the article is ready for featured status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Does the succession box need "2009 Orange Bowl" linked? It would be better to state that the next one is scheduled for 2009, as it implies that the 2009 one has already occurred. PeterSymonds | talk 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see your point... but it's linked on other FA-class single-game articles that I've done (2007 ACC Championship Game, 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl), and we'd have to insert a link eventually anyway. I don't really care either way. It's a minor change that doesn't affect the content. Whichever way you think is best.
• Comment
  • Em dashes should be unspaced.
    • Done.
  • This isn't a reliable source.
    • Added another citation.
  • The references section should come before the external links section.
    • Done.
  • The Wikimedia Commons link belongs in the external links section. Epbr123 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. If there's anything else I can do, let me know! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good work. --Savethemooses (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Another Great article - PGPirate 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article, very well written, and many great details. Hello32020 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Object I would likely support with the following fixes:
  • Convert all city-state links to separately linkable links (preferably using {{city-state|city name|state name}}
    • Done.
  • Is it fair to abbreviate ACC and spell out Big 12 Conference?
    • Fixed.
  • Link interception, touchdown, Outland Trophy, kickoff, rush (American football), coin toss, tight end, first down, tackle (football move).
    • Added.
  • Use either kickoff return or kickoff returner. Use forward pass link
    • Done.
  • Since Quarterback rating redirects link to first usage at passer rating.
    • Done.
  • Switch cornerback link to first usage.
    • Done.
  • National and international media widely covered the 2008 Orange Bowl. sounds awk. National and international media coverage for the 2008 Orange bowl was very extensive.
    • Fixed.
  • See Category:Conversion templates for temperature and make it linkable. {{convert}} may be a good one, but not sure.
    • Linked.
  • Sorry I really just skimmed the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. I think this needs a bit of a copyedit. Overall, it did seem better written than your last FA nom, though :) I've listed a few examples below of problems with the prose, and I fixed a few blatant things in the article myself.
  • Why does ACC Champion No 3 need to be emphasized in the lead? Why not just "The ACC Champion"?
    • Switched it to the same format as Kansas's ranking.
  • This doesn't make sense "played the host team at the neutral-site Dolphins Stadium for the eighth-ranked Kansas Jayhawks from the Big 12 Conference (Big 12). "
    • Clarified. Tech was the home team in a neutral-site game. Replaced "home" for "host" and reworded.
      • It's not the "home"/"host" that is confusing but the "at the neutral-site Dolphins Stadium for the eighth-ranked Kansas Jayhawks". How about something like "The game between the ACC Champion, third-ranked Virginia Tech, and Big 12 Conference representative Kansas, ranked number eight, was held at the neutral site Dolphins Stadium. Kansas was considered the home team." Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay. I think I've got it now, but you might want to check to see if it's understandable.
  • The lead does not seem to summarize the article. There is no mention of any of the final statistics or post-game effects.
    • Added an additional paragraph.
  • "football was taken up as a way to recover from tragedy" - this needs to be reworded
    • Replaced with "seized"
      • Do you think it would be better to directly quote part of the reference here instead? I think the applicable lines were "The massacre left the Virginia Tech campus in search of catharsis, and nearly everyone in the southern Virginia community spent the summer pointing toward this game as the next step in helping the Hokies heal." It provides a bit more context and doesn't sound as melodramatic (to me anyway) as the current version. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not a big fan of direct quotes, but I've paraphrased that sentence from the article. If you think it's still too confusing for you, I'll put in the direct quote. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Watch for repetitive text (examples: "to face the No. 2. LSU Tigers. The highly ranked Tigers" ->yes, #2 is highly ranked; "From their opening game of the year....In their opening game of the year")
    • Fixed, Corrected, and Replaced. The Department of Redundancy Department thanks you for your service and help and assistance.
  • "widely regarded as a pre-season pick" -> seems to me to mean that many people expected them to be a pre-season pick, not that many people chose them as a their pre-season pick
    • Reworded
  • Did you find any information on how long it had been since Kansas had been ranked? "Kansas broke into the rankings of the top 25 college football teams in the country for the first time in the 2007 season, " makes it seem like it was a regular occurrence, and I know that's not true.
    • Added.
  • "Jayhawk rivals such as Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and Texas A&M went down to defeat," -> very awkward phrasing
    • Reworded.
  • I don't know that this information is necessary in this article " Irie became the first DJ to perform in the halftime show of a bowl game in 2005 when he played during halftime at the 2005 Orange Bowl."
    • It's not necessary, but it's an interesting fact and it helped to fill out the halftime show section a bit. It's also useful in explaining why this guy was there alongside ZZ Top.
  • Be more consistent on whether you write out numbers or use numerals. In some sentences the styles are mixed, and they should not be (11th and seventh).
    • First through ninth, spell out, 10th and above, use numerals.
      • It's kind of lost in Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Spelling_out_numbers, but the guideline says Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That's one part of the MOS that I completely disagree with and choose to follow Associated Press style instead. It's personal preference — I simply think that using numerals is jarring to a reader and takes away from the flow of a sentence. I don't mean to be disruptive, but I simply don't like that rule :) I don't mind if someone else changes it, but I'm willing to stick to my principles on this one.
  • Stewart Mandel is misspelled in the references as Stuart.
    • Fixed.

Karanacs (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Object This is a fine article which is very well written, but I cant support it as Featured Article. It's just not important enough.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. Other single-game college football articles have already reached featured status, and those games were watched by fewer people, had smaller cash payouts, and involved less-highly ranked teams. This is neither the first nor second single-game article to be judged for featured status—precedent has already been established. If I cannot change your mind, allow me to point to that precedent and invite the final judge to take precedent into consideration. No previous objection has been made to the "importance" of a single-game college football article in several different cases. I can supply examples for both articles that have passed Featured Review and those that have failed featured review for other reasons. In no instance has the perceived importance of the article been an issue of debate. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support—The comment above should be ignored. I don't find it at all interesting, but it's well-written and seems to satisfy all of the criteria (aside from the MOS breach "maybe the best cornerback duo in the country.", which needs the dot to be after the closing quote, since the quote starts within WP's sentence). Stub para under "Halftime show" could be merged, yes? Tony (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made those two fixes. Thanks for the suggestion! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.