Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl/archive1

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 not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl

Self Nomination. I've been working on this article for just under a month now, having created it on October 9. In that time, it's gone through several rounds of editing, expansion, copy editing, and more expansion. It just recently passed a GA review, and I think it's time for the next step. I feel the article does an excellent job of covering the subject, and even though it is a specialized topic, was understandable by the GA reviewer, who hails from Australia and thus was relatively unfamiliar with American football. Please let me know if there are any changes that need to be made to this article in order to bring it fully up to featured status and I will be happy to make them. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article a few times and am impressed with the details that went into creating and maintaining the article. As of now, I have not seen any inaccuracies in the article. Keep up the great work. Dawg1279 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My only complaint would be that it's a bit biased towards a US audience. For example, you might indicate that it's a bowl game for American football (since the rest of the world calls soccer football. :) And mention that the bowl is played in the US, for those readers who don't know where "Atlanta, Georgia" is (and don't want to click the wiki-link). Once those small issues are addressed, I'm happy to support it—it's a nice, well-written article! MeegsC | Talk 08:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done JKBrooks85 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support MeegsC | Talk 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for catching one of those duplications. JKBrooks85 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tone doesn't seem very encyclopedic. From the lead: "A postseason showdown...between two long-time football powerhouses", "Virginia Tech jumped out to a 21–3 halftime lead", "Georgia stormed back", "When the final whistle sounded, Georgia was on top". Pagra shtak 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you, but I've changed the sentences you mentioned. JKBrooks85 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better. The article needs a copyedit, though; I'm seeing some redundancies. The following are examples—please go through the entire article:

"a postseason American college football game in Atlanta, Georgia, United States between two football programs"—Football games require football programs, yes?
"The selection process for the 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl was different from that of previous previous years, when the game had been conducted under the Peach Bowl brand. Beginning with the 2006 game.." It seems the entire first sentence is neatly captured in the phrase "Beginning with the 2006 game". The only thing that would be lost is that the game was previously the Peach Bowl, which is already mentioned elsewhere.
"Various casinos and betting organizations favored Virginia Tech when setting their point spread. Prior to the game, Virginia Tech was favored to win by either 2.5 points or three points, depending on the casino or betting organization." Again, does the first sentence say anything not covered by the second?

Pagra shtak 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those examples. JKBrooks85 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please look through the entire article, as those were just examples. There are still many opportunities to tighten the prose:

"The 18-point comeback was the largest for Georgia under coach Mark Richt ~~in any game~~ up to that point." (Not incredibly happy with that, but it's better.)
"The game marked ~~only~~ the third time ~~in history~~ that Virginia Tech and the University of Georgia played a football game against each other."—or, better yet, recast along the lines of "It was the third football game between Virginia Tech and the University of Georgia."

I suggest trying to find someone unfamiliar with the article willing to go through and copyedit. Do you know anyone at the college football WikiProject who might help? Pagra shtak 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anyone personally -- the project isn't very active -- but I'll post something and see if it generates any results. JKBrooks85 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused by why the score 31–24 in the infobox links to "2006 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl", which redirects to this article. I'm unfamiliar with that infobox and how it works. Pagra shtak 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. I'm not that proficient with infobox templates -- the whole thing is a mystery to me. Basically, there are two college football infoboxes that would've fit here. The first is Template:Collegebowl, which is quite beautiful stylistically, but is more appropriate to a parent article describing the bowl game in general. The other is Template:Infobox CollegeFB Bowl, which, while not as aesthetically pleasing, might be more appropriate. I'm not a big fan of that latter one, so I went with the former. JKBrooks85 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the incorrect usage for the template. The parameter names are prev_matchup_year, prev_matchup_season, prev_matchup_teams, and prev_matchup_score. So, it is seeking the previous bowl game results. So, those fields should contain information on the 2005 Chick-Fil-A Bowl. And the CFB WikiProject is very active. I'm sure somebody will be willing to help.↔NMajdan•talk 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my only other experience with wikiprojects has been with the Military History one, and from what I understand, that's one of the most active ones around. I imagine that's affected my judgment of how active a project is. JKBrooks85 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy that. The CFB WikiProject is active, especially around this time of the year. Unfortunately, the most active of us are focusing in on our team's yearly article (in my case, 2007 Oklahoma Sooners football team.↔NMajdan•talk 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and looking at these two templates closer, to me it seems the one you are using are more for the general article on the bowl, not a specific matchup. So, it would be most appropriate on the Chick-fil-a Bowl article as opposed to this one. The other one you mentioned is more for specific yearly matchups.↔NMajdan•talk 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... it now. I'll need some help making it look nice. Infoboxes aren't my forte. JKBrooks85 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done It's now replaced. I have to admit that it doesn't look as bad as I thought it would. I'd still appreciate some help in making it look a little nicer and easier to read. Fortunately, this infobox is a bit easier to alter than I thought it'd be. Let me know what you think. Thanks! JKBrooks85 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. What are you wanting to do to make it look nicer? Although, did you subst the template? If so, you shouldn't. Just transclude it.↔NMajdan•talk 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did substitute it -- deleted the old one and slid in the new one. As for looks, I think I'd like to throw in a grey background for the subheads and put the main title inside the infobox itself. JKBrooks85 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not if you substituted the template, but if you WP:SUBSTed it. I've fixed it and it's now transcluded. Pagra shtak 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I understand what you were talking about now. It makes the code look a lot cleaner, but isn't it kind of like a step sideways, since it removes the final score from the infobox? That's probably one of the biggest things someone would want to know in a hurry. JKBrooks85 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most game specific articles I've seen also put the {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} at the very top of the article for this very reason. You currently have it at the bottom of the Game Summary section. See 2007 BCS National Championship Game to see what I mean.↔NMajdan•talk 21:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did see that. I think it kind of overshadows the text... maybe a smaller version right below the infobox would work better. What do you think? JKBrooks85 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I threw the score at the top of the infobox. That should work pretty well. JKBrooks85 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Johntex: It is clear that a lot of work has gone into this and the article is looking very good. Great work! I am finding a few things that could be improved. Therefore, I Oppose for now.

Some important college football terms are not wikilinked. For instance, the first 2 instances of "quarterback" are not linked.
I think one think that would make it easier on the non-college-football fan would be to include "see also" links to articles such as Glossary of American football. You can check 2005 Texas Longhorn football team (which is FA) for an example of this.
Done
I disagree with the reviewer who said to mention that this game takes place in the United States. For a city like Atlanta, Georgia, that is over-kill. Virtually anyone with a computer and internet access who read English well enough to be reading this article will know Atlanta is is in the United States. This is even more apparent since the sport is mentioned. I would remove "United States" as being stylistically cluttered. I would also link to Atlanta, Georgia as one link, not two.
Done
I like the citations in the lead. They are much better for the reader than an uncited introduction. I recommend citing the last sentence of the lead also. This should be easily found in one of the existing sources.
Done
This sentence confused me, "To face the ACC representative, the Chick-fil-A Bowl selection committee had the right to select first SEC school after the Bowl Championship Series, Cotton Bowl, Capital One Bowl, and Outback Bowl made their selections. " It was not clear to me at first what "To face the ACC representative..." meant. Perhaps something more like "In choosing the SEC opponent..."? Also, I think their is a missing word. Shouldn't it be "select the first" instead of "select first".
Done Good catch.
There is a fair amount of discussion of the rankings. I think a link to 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings would be helpful.
Done
The terms "offense" and "defense" should be linked to their respective American-football articles.
Done I didn't see an American football-specific article for either, so I linked them to offense (sports) and defense (sport)
{{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} needs to be moved to the top of the article. One of the goals of this template is to introduce the important elements of the article to the reader. It cannot do this as effectively if it is buried in the article. Please see 2006 Alamo Bowl, 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game, 2007 Navy vs. Notre Dame football game for examples of its use.
GA on hold I'm really against putting the single game header template at the top. It's not that I don't like it — it's a very useful tool — but it's too big for such a prominent position. Its size means that it overshadows the lede of the article and the infobox at the top of the article. By putting the template at the top, I feel that the assumption is being made that the final score is the most important thing about the game. I don't think that's necessarily the case with every football game. I do, however, feel that the final score is extremely important, so I put it directly below the name of the bowl game above the infobox. For more information about the scoring summary of the game, it only makes sense to have the template in the statistics section of the article with the rest of the statistics.
Abbreviations need to be defined as they are introduced. For instance, "...Southeastern Conference (SEC) and Virginia Tech represented the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC)..."
Done
In the "Selection process" section, the Atlantic Coast Conference is wikilinked but the Southeastern Conference is not. If you link one you should link they other. They are both linked in the intro (just one section up) so I would link neither in this section.
Done
(not a formal FA requirement, but suggested under Wikipedia's Manual of Style): I notice that you already have some good pictures of the game, but they really should be on Commons, not on Wikipedia. Freely licensed photos should really be stored on Commons so that they are readily available for use in other article. One does this by creating a Commons gallery such as this one on the 2007 UT team. Then you can organize it into categories such as "college football", "Atlanta, Georgia", etc. Finally, you put {{tl:commons|2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl}} at the bottom of the Wikipedia article to point to Commons. Oops, the photos are on Commons. Sorry about that. I still think it would be a good idea to organize them into one Commons page and link to {{commons|2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl}}. (optional)
Done
(also not a requirement) Also, there are more good pictures of this game on flickr if you search for "2006 Chick Fil-A". For instance this one. I left a flickrmail for that photographer asking if they will change the license to Creative commons so that we can use the shot. If you have time, you may want to contact other people on flickr with a similar request.
Doing... Great minds think alike. I've already got a few emails out to people on flickr and folks on a few Virginia Tech message boards to see if they've got any pictures they'd be willing to make Creative commons.
(optional) on the statistics table, I think it would be better to have a key at the bottom of the table to define terms such as "completions/attempts". An example would be the key found under the schedule in season articles such as 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Schedule. I think this is easier on the reader than a footnote.
Done Created a key below the Georgia table. Do you think that one is needed below the Virginia Tech table as well?

More coming... Johntex\^talk 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the critique! JKBrooks85 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JKBrooks, thanks for the swift action.

In regards to the single-game header: I think we need to apply it consistently, as it has been done on the other articles linked above. I also don't think it is over-emphasizing the final score. There are many useful links in that template, such as to the team pages and coaches pages. These links are not as useful if the template does not occur high on the page. If you think the de-facto standard should be changed, then I think that should be brought up for discussion by the college football wikiproject.

I can't finish my review right at the moment but I will find time to finish reviewing it within the next couple of days. In the meantime, could you please fix the list above so that your insertions do not mess up the numbering? You could do this either by pulling your replies to a list below mine, for example. If you use the same order then it will be obvious which reply refers to which point. Other reviewers can also comment on these points by referring to the number, if they wish. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the numbering. In regards to the template, I think it works well for articles in which that information has not already been included in the lede and for which there is no separate statistics/recap section. In larger articles, however, I feel that the hierarchy of the page is upset and that more important information is knocked down the page to a point where it's not visible immediately when the page opens. I'm running Safari at 1680x1000 resolution, and in the 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game article, I can't see the Ohio State infobox without scrolling down, even in full-screen view. In short, it's a great template, but if there's a more appropriate place in the article, it should go there. Most football game-related articles aren't this large, and I've got no problems putting the template at the top in those articles. Here, however, the template isn't as effective at top and there's a risk that it would break the hierarchy of the page and prevent readers from accessing the information in the article as effectively. JKBrooks85 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion about the template, but I still disagree. If you look at 2006 Alamo Bowl, this is a comprehensive article which still has the template at the top. It does not cause any break in the heirarchy, in my opinion. 2007 Fiesta Bowl has the same lay-out. There are many more examples in Category:College football games. I just checked 10 and 8 had it at the top. The other 2 were stubs that did not have the template at all. I will not be able to support this article for FA unless this is changed to conform to these existing examples.

At the very least, it needs to be brought up for discussion at the WikiProject. If you can get consensus there to allow an alternate placement I would go along with that consensus, but I won't support one article unilaterally taking a different approach. I'm sorry to be adamant but I feel consistency (within limits) is a virtue unless there is a compelling reason to diverge. I see no such compelling reason here. Johntex\^talk 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll be posting that shortly. JKBrooks85 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning point 7: offense/defense, I would link to Offensive philosophy (American football). I thought there was also one for defense, but I guess not. I'll put that on the to-do list! Johntex\^talk 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done JKBrooks85 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good article. Ezratrumpet (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 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.