Talk:Super Bowl XXXIV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super Bowl XXXIV is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] older entries

Now why on Earth would this article be in the category "Dot-com"? Removing it, anyone with a reason otherwise can reinstate it. Danthemankhan 22:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Because of the adverts. The game was held during the height of the dot-com boom, so it is unsurprising that many of the adverts during half time were for dot-com companies. Pets.com famously paid millions for an advert featuring a sock puppet. Edward 07:38, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

[edit] Dot-com advert featuring guys sitting on a porch

Hi. I seem to recall one of the dot-com adverts was two guys sitting on a porch in rocking chairs for about 25 seconds, and then in the last 5 seconds saying something like, "Do we know what we're doing here?" "I sure hope so, we spent a lot of money for this ad." Does anyone remember which company that was? Btw Superbowl 34 was a great game, the Titans QB was awesome. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I remember that one as well, but like you I can't remember the company. That just proves that it wasn't an effective ad, considering the fact that neither of us can remember then company name :).--J.a.f.a.c. 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • See the "Commercials" section. How are the company's fates relevant?
  • "NY Giants" - this needs to be "New York Giants"
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Although not required, see if you can find any more refs.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • "The game featured many great performances from players on both teams" - this doesn't seem to be NPOV.
  • "Torry Holt was also a major deep threat" - is this NPOV? I'm not sure
  • "The Rams' defense did not get as much attention as the offense, but it was still extremely strong" - may not be NPOV
  • "the Rams had 3 extremely talented linebackers" - not NPOV
  • "after playing before sparse Houston crowds" - I don't think sparse is NPOV.
  • "The 1999 Titans were led by two stars" - maybe not NPOV, not 100% sure
  • "McNair was also an outstanding scrambler" - maybe not NPOV
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Looks stable
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images are fine
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Right now, fail; if you fix these things, it might pass. Sorry for messing up the numbering, that was because of the bullets. Good luck improving the article

  jj137 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done with everything suggested. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Looks like a good article overall. I'm passing it because it meets the requirements and there are no major issues with it. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.—   jj137 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisted

I see this article is at FAC. However, many of the issues raised there (link) mean it shouldn't be a GA, and I have thus delisted it. Issues such as referencing juvenile non-fiction books, poorly formatted and used references, and prose which really isn't that flash means this isn't GA quality yet. You can ask for a review if you disagree. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this delisting. Furthermore, I ask that the nominator withdraw the FAC within a few days after you receive a few more comments (I didn't look through the prose, so I might have missed some issues). I suggest you go to peer review afterwards. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn and archived; per WP:FAC/ar, pls wait for GimmeBot to update the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)