Talk:2012 Hawaii Bowl

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Hawaii Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Go Phightins, I'll be glad to take this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Sorry you had to wait so long for a review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Overall this looks solid and ripe for promotion, though there are some picky issues that will need to be addressed (below). I've also made some tweaks as I worked through the article; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. And sorry again that it took me a day longer than planned to get to this. I appreciate your patience with the delay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This was the seventh meeting between these two teams" -- "these two teams" is unclear here. Is this referring to the two teams that ultimately played?
• "This will be the Mustangs' second Hawaii Bowl," -- update tense
• "and more notably" -- cut per MOS:OPED
• " more notably was their first since the program was relaunched in 1989 after being shut down for two years due to massive NCAA rules violations" -- do any sources make this connection? Just want to make sure this isn't WP:SYNTH.
• "It will also be" -- update tense
• "following the 2009 game where they defeated the Nevada Wolf Pack by a score of 45-10" -- this is obviously easy to verify, but as numerical data, it should have an inline citation
• "(Line for SMU, Robbie Rouse for Fresno State)" -- use Line's full name and give a link on his first mention
• "who has totaled 4,185 rushing yards and 37 touchdowns in his career" -- this should be rewritten as "had totaled" or, if the statistic is still up to date, add an "as of"
• "does not employ a tight end" -- putting this in the present tense seems to risk this going out of date; would "did not" be okay here, since we're talking about a past season?
• " a 42-punt"-- should this be "a 42-yard punt"?
• "Most analysts predicted"; "Almost all analysts predicted that Fresno State would emerge victorious" -- do either of the sources directly say that "almost all analysts" felt this way? It's clear that the two given analysts do, but "almost all" may be overstating the case.
• "The pre-game buildup focused primarily on the strong rushing attacks of both teams as well as the overall sound offense of Fresno State. Most analysts predicted a resounding victory by Fresno State, but said that for SMU to emerge victorious, they would have to win the field position battle as well as create turnovers." -- oddly, the lead appears to provide more detail here than the body of the article--this should be reversed.
• " Consequently, Hunt was named the game's most valuable player (MVP) along with Fresno State's Davante Adams, who totaled 13 receptions for 144 yards and a touchdown." -- the source doesn't appear to say that Hunt and Adams were named co-MVPs. Is this just awkward wording?
• Conference USA and Mountain West should probably be wikilinked on their first mentions in the article's body.

Let me know your thoughts on the above, and thanks again for your work on this and sports articles generally. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

All are  Done, I believe. I added a few new sources, namely one to substantiate the tidbit on 2009 being the first game since 1984 ... which ironically sourced your prior concern as well. Go Phightins! 19:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! The only thing I'm still unclear on is the sentence "This was the seventh meeting between Hawaii and SMU" -- What's "this" refer to here--the Mountain West Conference? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Made it the 2012 Hawaii Bowl ... Go Phightins! 21:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm being really dense here somehow, but wasn't it Fresno State and SMU that played the 2012 bowl, and not Hawaii and SMU? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I owe you an apology, I cannot believe I just did that. Good catch. Go Phightins! 22:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

None needed, thanks for the fix. I'll run the checklist in a sec, but I think we're just about done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA