Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 00:48, 7 December 2007.

2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl

edit
previous FAC

A renomination for a GA-passed American Football article. The previous FAC had no outstanding issues, and failed to pass only because an insufficient number of people supported it prior to the nomination's expiration. There may be a few minor issues left to consider, but virtually every problem with the article has already been addressed by previous reviews. I'd like to encourage all editors to take a look at this, and please give your support if you feel that it's worthy of becoming a featured Article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. But there are little glitches, such as:
  • "$3.25 million USD"—See MOS on currencies. Three issues here.
 Done
  • "No. 1-ranked defense"—Oh, we couldn't have "number-one-ranked", could we? Not hyphenating at all to avoid the ugliness would be preferable than what is there now.
 Done
  • "No. 1 nationally-ranked defense"—No hyphen after "-ly".
 Done
  • Do I see spaced em dashes? See MOS.
 Done
  • "to prepare for these guys," Stafford said—See MOS on punctuation in quotations, here and elsewhere. Many of the whole-sentence quotes are fine with period before closing quotes, though.
 Done
  • "Action in the 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl."—This is not a proper sentence: see MOS on captions and final periods.
 Done
  • "47 yard line"—all of the others are hyphenated ...
 Done

These are only samples, so please get someone else to check through it with a toothcomb. Tony (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support, Tony! I've gone through and fixed the problems you mentioned. I've also asked a few other people to swing by and take a look as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:The only issue I have is with "Peachbowl, pitted", not very encyclopedic. Clever, but not very encyclopedic. I'd love to see some references to Virginia Tech's contribution to attendence, a record for this bowl and about 4k above capacity for the Georgia Dome from what I'm reading. Hokies are well known for buying bowl tickets. I'll see if I can dig up some references. --Rtphokie (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments, concerning 1c: Thanks for your response, JK. I've had a random look through the referencing, which needs work to ensure the verifiability, and thus authority, that WP's FA status requires. It's fussy, but complying with MOS requirements and just common practice is so important. For example:
    • Ref 46: no author, so how can we judge the authority/status of the claims on that site. I see that other links to that site do provide the names of authors. Can you identify and specify the author, or reference the information elsewhere?
  • Added an author name. That's the official Virginia Tech athletics site, so it's among the most reliable sources there.
    • Why are the "accessed" dates so tiny. I squint. {{reflist}} smalls already, so have you done it twice?
  • Since there's two dates in close proximity — the publishing date and the accessed date — I typically small the accessed date inside the citation. It allows the reader to distinguish the two dates more easily, and since the accessed date is the less important of the two, it gets smaller.
    • In future, page numbers of articles in newspapers would be nice, but maybe don't worry this time.
  • Yeah... I got most of the articles from the newspapers' web sites, so page numbers usually weren't available.
    • Ref 1, no less, is a real problem. No publisher specified (1800-sports.com, which is riiiiight down the bottom, and needs to be checked for reliability). The title is not listed correctly, and the publication date should be included. Peach Bowl betting odds is the webpage title, not the title of the article; if the link ever goes dead and you're looking for it, you won't find it under that title. The correct missing information is:

Betting Odds on the Chick-fil-A Bowl—Georgia vs. Virginia Tech. 1800-sports.com, 30 December 2006. Accessed 30 October 2007.

Then go to the article at 1800-sports.com, click on their home page, and search about for an About us or Contact us link to see who the heck they are. I can't find anything that reveals the author(s) or speaks to their reputation for fact checking. What makes this a reliable source? Convince our readers, that's all that is required. Then Internet users will really respect your article.

Okay. I've fixed that cite and backed it up with another citation from a betting site that I feel is a bit more reliable. It's also got quite a bit more information.

So a complete audit of the references would be great! Tony (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me know what you think now. JKBrooks85 18:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where'd you see that one? I thought I got them all, but must've missed it. JKBrooks85 22:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even check the source, I just saw a couple instances where it was wrapped. Such as "18,500 tickets", "19 seconds", "200 total yards", "20 short rushes". Again, this is just looking at the article itself, not the code. So I'm sure there are more. Also, please make sure all your citations are properly formatted using one of the cite template ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc).↔NMajdan•talk 23:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! I went through the code and added a raft of non-breaking spaces and a few hyphens as well. I also rewrote a few awkward phrases. As to the citation templates... I really don't like them and it'd require quite a bit of effort to change all of them now. WP:CITE says that it's okay to not use them, and I'd prefer to not use them. If you or someone else want to change them, that's up to you. Either way, they display the same, and as long as a reader gets the needed information, I think it'll be okay. Again, thanks for spotting those broken spaces, and let me know if I missed any. JKBrooks85 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a game that many expected to be a defensive struggle,"
    • Typically, when you reference that many people thought something, I would like to see more than one reference. You can rephrase this In a game that was expected to be a defensive struggle or you can provide more references to validate your claim that many expected it.↔NMajdan•talk 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good point. It's been fixed. JKBrooks85 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, please attend to the MOS and citation formatting issues. The citations are not fully and correctly formattted, many are missing publishers, there is non-standard markup used in the lastaccessdate (resulting in very small text which is hard on old eyes) and there is text sandwiched between infoboxes (see WP:MOS#Images). Also, please have a look at WP:GTL regarding see also; it's very strange to see a link to Chick-fil-A Bowl in see also rather than worked into the text here somewhere, since it seems relevant. Is there a way to work it in instead of having it in See also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've made the changes you requested. All the cites have been standardized, I've worked the link to Chick-fil-A Bowl into the lede sentence, and cleaned up a few minor fixes. The two infoboxes you were talking about I couldn't fix (I tried, believe me), but if I stack them on one side or the other, they're far longer than the text. They then bump down the third infobox, and it gets really messy. Maybe shrinking them would work? I really don't know... I had to get help to create them as they exist now, so if they're a really big problem and need to be changed instead of staggered, I'd really appreciate some help in shrinking them down. I don't have a problem with it — I just don't know how to do it. Thanks for all your help, and I hope the article is worthy of your support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those little fixes, Sandy. I'll keep 'em in mind for next time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work. Hopefully you'll get enough supports before time runs out. Dincher (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment, Dincher. I hope so, too. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2006_Chick-fil-A_Bowl&oldid=1146552679"