Talk:Super Bowl XLII

Good article review (Feb 2008)

I have reviewed the article and I have placed it on hold because it does not yet satisfy three of the good article criteria, specifically:

4. Some of the sections are not yet neutral. There still seems to be some minor edit edit wars occurring over pro-Patriot and pro-Giant text. One example is the emphasis placed on the Giants celebration.

5. It is not yet stable. There were 21 edits yesterday (Feb 9) and 5 already today (Feb 10).

6. There are no images of the game, which is the topic of the article. There are only three images in the article: the logo and two about the post-game Giants celebration.

I suggest that we wait until things settle down and the above items are corrected. Truthanado (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been almost a week since the article has been on hold. Let's do an assessment of where we are with respect to GA status by evaluating each of the good article requirements.

1. PASS. It is well written. Although there are some grammar and spelling improvements that could be made, typical of articles of this size.
2. FAIL. It is not factually accurate and verifiable. It contains two "citation needed" tags.
3. PASS. It is broad in its coverage. It covers the topic (a football game) in detail, as well as associated topics before, during and after the game.
4. FAIL. It is not neutral. I believe that the section on the Eels commercial is an unverifiable advertisement and the beginning of an edit war (see the talk page). Since I have made comments on this and do not like to get involved in edit wars, I recuse myself and would be happy to hear what the community thinks about this. The section on the Giants celebration party is written like a press release for the Giants and contains many peacock terms. There has been at least one edit within the past week that claims the Patriots won the game (also affects stability, point 5 below).
5. FAIL. It is not stable. 10 edits yesterday (Feb 15) and 4 already today (Feb 16). Some of the edits are grammar/spelling spelling, which is good. There are still some edits that change content.
6. PASS. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. One image has been added. Comparing this article with last year's Super Bowl XLI, the number and type of images are similar, and I appreciate that desirable images of game situations might violate copyright.

In summary, this article still needs work to reach GA status. I will give it one more week, and then remove it from hold and declare it PASS or FAIL. Truthanado (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my final review of this article. Using the same method as above, this review objectively looks at each of the documented good article requirements.

1. PASS. It is well written. Only a few minor grammar items remain, which is typical of articles of this size.
2. FAIL. It may not be factually accurate and verifiable. Yesterday, the starting lineup was changed, with no cited references.
3. PASS. It is broad in its coverage. It covers the topic (a football game) in detail, as well as associated topics before, during and after the game.
4. FAIL. I am not convinced that it is neutral, although it has greatly improved in the past week. That an obvious Patriots fan would change the Starting Lineup section yesterday raises questions of neutrality and factual accuracy (see point 2 above), as well as affecting stability (see point 5 below).
5. FAIL. It is not stable. 11 edits yesterday (Feb 22) and 3 already today (Feb 23). Although many of the edits improve spelling/grammar/understanding and are expected, some change content (ex: starting lineup changes made yesterday).
6. PASS. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. One image has been added. Comparing this article with last year's Super Bowl XLI, the number and type of images are similar, and I appreciate that desirable images of game situations might violate copyright. I note that at least one image has been removed for copyvio.

Conclusion: There has been very good progress with constructive edits. However, there are still some important weaknesses and I cannot, in good faith, recommend this article for GA status in its current state. Perhaps sometime in the future ... not now. I am therefore declaring that this article FAIL as a GA. Truthanado (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive talk page

This talk page seems to be getting way too long and all but the most recent parts should probably be archived to make it easier to manage. Especially since the article has reached a point where it is mainly being tidied up for GA status. --Finalnight (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ---CWY2190^TC 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Update on GA improvements

Most of the rapid editing has calmed down at this point and it is mostly about dealing with vandals now. I think the improvements are coming along nicely. Keep up the work guys! (Also wanted to create this section so there is a spot to discuss cleanup outside of the formal GA review section)--Finalnight (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

weak content?

However, after the play had been run, Patriots' head coach Bill Belichick challenged that New York had too many players on the field and replay confirmed that was the case as Giants linebacker Chase Blackburn was unable to get to the sidelines as the ball was being snapped. Therefore, referee Mike Carey reversed the play, and the Giants were penalized 5 yards for having too many players on the field, giving the Patriots a first down. I am not a fan of either team (go Chargers!), and I rarely watch football, but that particular play and the follow up to it is something I and many others remember a bit differently than this article suggests. While I understand keeping an article neutral, a dis-service is done by not mentioning that it was half of one foot on the field, and only that because Brady moved the play fast to try to catch him. Is there not a place for a "GA" to mention controversies surrounding the game at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlamere (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Brady wasn't even on the field. If my memory serves me right, it was a punt. 76.106.203.88 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-shooting incident deleted

I took out a section about a disgruntled man who threatened to shoot people at the game, but in the end decided not to, and he turned himself in to the police. It seems a little like a "dog doesn't bite man" story of the sort which happens at all major events, and in any case its inclusion just encourages copycats. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review (April 2008)

I'll be doing the Good Article review for this article. I've just scanned the article so far, but here are some general things to fix before I thoroughly read the article:

• Several of the citations are dead and need to be replaced with a new one or an archived url. See here
• File:35229310.jpg needs a specific fair-use rationale for this article.
• Most of the pictures are all clumped together in the middle, can any of them be moved to anywhere else in the article?
• Several sections have few or no references: Playoffs, New York Giants, Pre-Game Notes, most of the paragraphs in the game summary, Statistics, a few of the records
• The block quote in the commercials sections needs to be formatted with <blockquote></blockquote>
• Several of the references need to be properly formatted using Template:cite web

That's it for now. I'll be back later with more specific changes to make. Nikki311 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

After reviewing the article again, there is just too much unsourced content...so I'm going to fail the article. Here are some more specific things to change or consider before another nomination:

• These sentences in the lead need sources: In doing so, the Giants became the first NFC wild card team to win a Super Bowl. They also became the fifth wild card seed from either conference, and the fourth in eleven years, to earn an NFL championship.
• Because there was rain in the forecast for Super Bowl XLII, the roof was closed for the entire day's activities. - source?
• For the sections detailing the two teams' seasons, I think pictures from their respective seasons might be nice.
• I'm not sure about precedent in other Super Bowl articles, but IMO, the broadcasting section might be best at the end of the article. I doubt a lot of people come to read this article to see what channel it played on in Montenegro, so any reader would probably just skip over the section anyway and continue reading with the entertainment section.
• A picture for the pre-game or half-time activities might also benefit the article. I would recommend finding a picture on Flickr that has the proper licensing and can be used.
• After six years in office, Bloomberg became the 14th consecutive mayor of New York City to preside over a ticker-tape parade. - source? Anytime there is a record broken or made, it needs to be cited.
• The winners of the 20th annual USA Today Super Bowl Ad Meter should be sourced.
• The quotation at the end of the article looks out of place. Try integrating it somewhere in the prose in a quote box. See the blue quote boxes in Mulholland Drive (film) for a good example.

I hope this helps. I understand how frustrating it can be to have an article fail multiple times. Keep trying and good luck! Nikki311 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

???

What does it mean "break the record with the 16-0?" The Dolphins went 17-0 a couple years ago and the Pats went 18-0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.79.163 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Giants should have been called for holding?

After the discussion of the "Helmet Catch," this article states: Manning and the Giants were not called for holding and this kept the Giants hopes alive. I do not question the truth of this statement; however, this sentence is either superfluous or is an implication that perhaps the Giants should have been called for holding during the play. The latter is fine if objective commentators saying this can be sourced. If not, this sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.69.184 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

This is at the end of the introduction:

"For people in New York City, the Giants' Super Bowl win, like most other sports championship victories there, drew the largest television audience for a game in the league involved and/or sports show on the network(s) that broadcast it, as evidenced by the New York Mets World Series win in 1986 and the New York Rangers Stanley Cup win in 1994."

173.71.152.154 (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It means that those games set records for largest television audiences at the times they were broadcast.--Swellman (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Super bowl odds

One thing I don't understand here - in the opening text it says "was a rematch of the final game of the regular season. In that game, the Patriots won 38–35" - then "Thus, New England entered Super Bowl XLII as 13 to 14-point favorites" - why were they 13 point favourites, when only a few weeks ago they'd won by just 3 points? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Super-Bowl-XLII-diagram-by-Chartball.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Super-Bowl-XLII-diagram-by-Chartball.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Super-Bowl-XLII-diagram-by-Chartball.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Super Bowl XLII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080209134221/http://www.newsday.com:80/sports/columnists/ny-spwally055565082feb05,0,2316915.column to http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spwally055565082feb05,0,2316915.column

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Super Bowl XLII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207090152/http://www.thefount.info/16-0isthenew15-1.html to http://www.thefount.info/16-0isthenew15-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202060320/http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z4&ID=73 to http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z4&ID=73
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017153511/http://wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6364507&nav=menu36_3 to http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6364507&nav=menu36_3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206181739/http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3628342 to http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3628342
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207065213/http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=78132 to http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=78132
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207090843/http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=346770 to http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=346770
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207222958/http://myespn.go.com/blogs/hashmarks/0-5-366/Belichick-has-left-the-building---a-second-early.html to http://myespn.go.com/blogs/hashmarks/0-5-366/Belichick-has-left-the-building---a-second-early.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020103259_pf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)