Talk:2019 LSU vs. Alabama football game

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Alabama Crimson Tide's loss to the LSU Tigers in the 2019 LSU vs. Alabama football game broke a 31-game home winning streak? Source: The Washington Post
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Little Rock campaign

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 03:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC).

• New, long enough, well referenced, neutral, no copyvio on spotchecks. Hook is interesting and cited to a reliable source. QPQ is done. 97198 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging nominator JJonahJackalope and reviewer 97198 - I am getting ready to review the article for GA and saw this nomination on the article's talk page. I know this already has a tick but I was wondering whether I could float an alt for both of your approval, to eliminate the slight repetition (of the team names):

ALT1: ... that the Alabama Crimson Tide's loss to the LSU Tigers in their 2019 football game broke a 31-game home winning streak?

No worries if the original is preferred, just wanted to bring up this option. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• for ALT1, which is probably an improvement on the original wording. 97198 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 LSU vs. Alabama football game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 04:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What a game. I'll review this over the next few days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your patience and I apologize for the delay in leaving comments. The article isn't too far off from GA as it currently stands, just some prose issues and a few other things. Comments are below and I've placed the article on hold. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The fixes to the article look good (I've made a few minor edits myself after reading it through again). Reference spot checks are all good and I have no further concerns so I am happy to give this a pass. Well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• I think you can ditch "(2019 version)" in the infobox as 2019 is given two lines above
  • Done.
• Million Dollar Band halftime will need sourcing as it is not mentioned in the text of the article
  • Added source and information on this in the body of the article.
• "CBS" in the infobox is linked to SEC on CBS, which is a redirect to College Football on CBS Sports, so this link can be retargeted to avoid this redirect
  • Done.
• "dominated the first half of the game, with a halftime score of 33–13" → "...and led at halftime by a score of 33–13" instead of "...with a halftime score of..."; also link Half-time but pipe the link to "halftime" as that is the conventional American Football spelling
  • Done.
• I think it would help to expand the lead just a touch, perhaps with a little more detail about the game (currently only a little under 20% of the lead is about the game itself); I'm thinking of something like the third paragraph of the lead at 2021 Bahamas Bowl or the third paragraph of the lead at 2014 Texas Bowl (which, for full transparency, are both my GAs)
  • Expanded lede to include more information on the game, modified the structure of the lede accordingly.

Pre-game buildup

• "Both teams competed in the SEC's West Division." → this sounds a touch awkward as both teams are still in the SEC West
  • Fixed to make it sound less awkward.
• "The 2019 game would be a home game for the Crimson Tide" → change to "was a home game" using past tense
  • Done.
• "and both team's starting" → change to "teams'"
  • Done.
• "Several news sources expected the game to be a high-scoring game with a combined score of around 60 points, Alabama was favored by 6.5 points, with an over–under of 64" → I would reword this slightly and add a conjunction; perhaps something like this: Several news sources expected the game to be high-scoring with a predicted combined score of around 60 points. The over–under was 64 and Alabama was favored by 6.5 points. This also gets rid of the repetition of the word "game" in the beginning of the sentence. I have also added "predicted" to stress that the 60-point score was just that and not being confused for some sort of actual result.
  • Done.

LSU

• "In the preseason polls, LSU was ranked No. 6 in both the AP and Coaches Polls" → repetition of "polls"
  • Fixed to avoid repetition.
• "With the offense using a new spread offense scheme," → repetition of "offense"
  • Fixed to avoid repetition.
• "The next week, the Tigers traveled to take on the No. 9 Texas Longhorns in a matchup between two top-10 teams" → you don't have to do this for every week of the season, but in this instance (especially as you explicitly mention that it was a top-10 game) I'd support adding LSU's ranking before "Tigers"
  • Done.
• "with Burrow throwing four touchdown passes and placekicker Cade York scoring three field goals" → change "throwing" and "scoring" to past tense rather than present; also link Field goal
  • Done.
• "before a September 14 home game win against the Northwestern State Demons" → not the biggest deal, but I'd remove "game" so it just reads "...September 14 home win..."
  • Done.
• "a road game win against" → same here as above
  • Done.
• "Those 46.8 points per game ranked fourth nationally" → since this stat is already mentioned with the mention that it ranked second in the conference, on this mention I'd add the word "also" before "ranked"
  • Done.
• "passed for 2,805 yards with a completion percentage of 78.8" → link Completion percentage
  • Done.
• "Athlon Sports called wide receivers Ja'Marr Chase, Justin Jefferson, and Terrace Marshall Jr. arguably the best group of wide receivers besides Alabama's." → eliminate bolded words as the text following the group of names makes it clear that they are all WRs.
  • Done.
• "arguably the best group of wide receivers" → link wide receivers
  • Done.
• "LSU had the second best run defense" → I believe "second-best" needs a hyphen here
  • Done.
• "the fifth best pass rush (with 20 quarterback sacks), and the sixth best pass efficiency defense" → same here for "fifth-best" and "sixth-best"
  • Done.

Alabama

• "In the preseason polls, Alabama was ranked No. 2 in both the AP and Coaches Poll" → repetition of "poll(s)"
  • Fixed.
• "with Tagovailoa breaking the school record" → rearrange sentence just a bit to change to past tense
  • Done.
• "which Alabama won with a 41-point differential" → as linked, "point differential" (or, more commonly "goal difference" in soccer) is a bit different than used here; I would opt for "margin" or "margin of victory" in this context, perhaps which Alabama won by a margin of 41 points or which Alabama won by a 41-point margin, or more simply altogether which Alabama won by 41 points.
  • Edited to your latter suggestion.
• "In the days leading up to it, it was unsure if Tagovailoa would play due to his injury" → a bit of ambiguity in the beginning of the sentence: the first "it" clearly refers to the Bama-LSU game but it's unclear to what or whom the second "it", as in it was unsure, refers.
  • Fixed to add clarity.
• "in points per games" → should be "points per game"
  • Fixed.

Game summary

• "The broadcast averaged a 9.7 Nielsen rating" → link Nielsen ratings
  • Done.
• "making it the highest rated regular season game" → I believe "highest-rated" needs a hyphen
  • Fixed.
• Wouldn't hurt to mention the referee somewhere in this section as he is previously only mentioned in the infobox.
  • Done.

First quarter

• "a 65-yard kickoff that was received" → link Kickoff (gridiron football)
  • Done.
• "Perine punted from the Alabama 29" → link Punt (gridiron football)
  • Done.

Second quarter

• "A blocked extra point attempt by York put the score at 16–7." → this may seem nitpicky but I would replace the word "put" with "kept" since the blocked PAT did not change the score from what it was before the attempt
  • Done.
• "put the Crimson Tide at around midfield" → remove "at"
  • Done.
• "but couldn't make it 15 yards" → sounds a touch informal, I'd recommend but were unable to gain 15 yards
  • Done.
• "they punted, with Zach Von Rosenberg putting it out of bounds" → I believe "out-of-bounds" needs hyphens
  • Done.
• "Following another false start penalty against Alex Leatherwood" → the person that committed the first false start penalty is not identified; is "another" here referring to the fact that they committed a second false start or that Leatherwood specifically false started again?
  • Edited to avoid confusion.
• "the Crimson Tide were able to reach first down" → perhaps "reach the first down"? If that's what you meant, I'd revise a little further and say reach the first down marker if you feel that's appropriate
  • Edited for clarity
• "fourth and 17" reads better as "4th & 17"
  • Fixed.
• "that brings the score to 26–13" → use past tense
  • Fixed.
• "A personal foul against Landon" → link Personal foul (American football)
  • Done.
• "with the score now 33–13" → this is worded a little awkwardly; it would be helpful to make it clearer that the score was now 33-13 as a direct result of the play which was just described
  • Fixed.
• "Alabama received on their 30 and attempt one play for a loss of yards before the end of the half" → this sentence gets a little sloppy; maybe Alabama received the ball on their 30 and attempted one play, which resulted in a loss of yards, before the end of the half -- my changes in bold.
  • Edited to avoid confusion.

Third quarter

• As far as I can tell this whole section is written in present tense; this should be altered to past tense.
  • Fixed.
• "A drive by the Tigers puts them around midfield" → the "drive" is the whole series of plays from gaining possession to losing possession, so it doesn't make sense to refer to a drive and then their plays after it
  • Edited appropriately.
• "begins a steady drive up the field" → be wary of adding words that are too descriptive or rely on your interpretation of the play-by-play (which begins to border on OR if done too much), such as "steady" here
  • Removed "steady".
• "end the third quarter on third down and 2 " → "third down and 2" can be simplified to "3rd & 2"
  • Edited appropriately.

Fourth quarter

• This section has the same issue with present tense, which should be changed to past tense
  • Done.
• "puts them one yard from the endzone" → change "endzone" to "end zone" and link End zone
  • Done.
• "the Tigers begin a steady drive up the field" → same thing as in third quarter section with "steady"
  • Removed "steady".
• after a failed two-point conversion" → link two-point conversion
  • Done.
• "embarked on a similarly long, steady drive" → same here
  • Removed "steady".
• "still a one-score game" → make this a bit more formal, "one-possession game"
  • Done.
• "LSU began possession" → "...began their next possession..."
  • Done.
• "cutting the score to 46–41" → I know what you mean here, but "cutting the score" implies that the score itself was reduced, rather than Alabama's deficit. Rewording to ...cutting the deficit to five points... gives the effect you're going for
  • Done.

Statistical summary

• As a general note for this section, any player linked in the "Pre-game buildup" or "Game summary" sections (excluding the scoring summary box) needs not be linked again here. If they are only linked previously in the lead/infobox, then they're good
  • Edited links appropriately.
• Having read the source to check and then coming back to the article, I can see what was intended by this line, but "The 46 points scored by LSU represent the most points scored against Alabama in any football game" sounds at first that no team had ever scored 46 on Alabama, so I would reword this slightly to reflect the source, which says The 46 points are the most LSU has scored against Alabama...
  • Reworded.
• "with 3 touchdowns with no interceptions" → this gets repetitive, I'd change the second "with" to "and"
  • Done.
• "was the top rusher, making 20 carries for 103 yards" → "making carries" is not typical football terminology that I have heard; I would use something like "recording 20 carries" or "carrying the ball 20 times"
  • Reworded.
• "DeVonta smith was his top receiver" → capitalize "Smith"
  • Capitalized.
• "making 19 carries for 146 yards" → same thing here as above
  • Fixed.
• In the statistical comparison table, I'm guessing there is a typo in the row for third down conversions, as I find it unlikely that LSU went 4-for-35 and similarly that Alabama was 7-for-53.
  • Fixed statistical error.

Aftermath

• "The team finished their regular season with conference wins over the Ole Miss Rebels, the Arkansas Razorbacks, and the Texas A&M Aggies" → all three teams are linked in the "Pre-game buildup" section and don't need to be linked again
  • Removed links.
• "against the Oklahoma Sooners in the Peach Bowl semifinal, who they beat 63–28" → rearrange this so that you get the score right after the opponent, like in the Peach Bowl semifinal against the Oklahoma Sooners, who they beat 63–28
  • Rephrased this section.
• "The team is only one of two" → this sounds a bit awkward, the usual wording would be "The team is one of only two"
  • Fixed.
• "establish him as the main frontrunner for winning the Heisman Trophy" → eliminate the bolded words as redundant
  • Done.
• "However, Auburn won, essentially ending their chances at earning a playoff berth" → I know that technically Bama still could have been picked for the playoff after this loss, but there was no shot at them getting in (evident based on the fact that they ended up missing the playoff by ten spots), so I will ultimately leave this up to you but I think you could remove "essentially" and still be correct in your statement. The source cited says something to a similar effect: ...another failed field goal by Alabama in the Iron Bowl wiped away the fifth-ranked Crimson Tide's playoff hopes... and the headline reads ...upends No. 5 Alabama's playoff hopes...; later in the article is this line: The Tide made the first five College Football Playoffs fields, but its case was damaged with a 46-41 loss to No. 1 LSU. The team's in-state rival delivered the final blow. and near the bottom: Alabama awaits its bowl invitation with no title shot.
  • Removed "essentially".
• The source used for the draft picks section was published following the 2021 NFL Draft; were any players from the game drafted in 2022?
  • Added players from the game drafted in 2022, added reference.

Images

• File:President_Trump_and_First_Lady_Melania_Trump_in_Alabama_(49048699168).jpg – Public domain, caption not needed (infobox), relevant
• File:LSUvsGASouth_205_(49079191927).jpg – Good license, good caption, relevant
• File:President_Trump_and_First_Lady_Melania_Trump_in_Alabama_(49048698773).jpg – Public domain, good caption, relevant
• File:Tua_Tagovailoa_pre-snap_versus_the_Auburn,_Nov_27,_2018.png – Good license, good caption, relevant
• File:LSUvsUT_291_(49174354598).jpg – Good license, good caption, relevant
• File:LSUvsNWLA_1039A_(49105840492).jpg – Good license, good caption, relevant

References

Spot checks and other reference verification will be performed after the above comments are resolved.

PCN02WPS, just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have made edits to the article to address the points made in your review. Thank you for reviewing this article, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.