Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 USC Trojans football team

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [1].

2007 USC Trojans football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Bobak (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe its ready: after reaching GA status, using Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Review and the general GA review process, it has since undergone a solid peer review. The only precedent for a FA college football season article is the exceptional 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. This article mimics the 2005 Texas style fairly closely; both articles are very long due to the nature of summarizing a 12+ game season. The extra size in the USC article is due to a more extensive "Before the season" outlook and storyline. Beyond the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong and look forward to this process. Bobak (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |content=[reply]

Comments - I certainly can't claim that this isn't comprehensive. This is a huge article. My method of prose nit-picking will probably not work well with this, but I might as well offer some advice. —This is part of a comment by Giants2008 (of 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • "After the season, USC players did well in the subsequent 2008 NFL Draft..." Don't like "did well", because they didn't really do anything at the time. They were selected based on past performances. Oh, and "ten players" could be changed to "10 players". Depends on how you feel about numbers. In fact, I'm seeing some inconsistent number usage throughout the article.
  • Reply - Fixed sentence accordingly. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-season outlook: "and were expected to again be in the running for the National Championship." The general reader may not know that the Trojans are an annual national power. Some background would be helpful.
  • Reply - Great suggestion, I created a sentence before that talks about the previous season and puts it in perspective. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Booty, along with returning senior-starting tackle (is hyphen needed?) Sam Baker, are ranked as two of the "Top 20 Players Heading Into 2007" by Sports Illustrated." Change are to were.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nine of which were Prep Star all-Americans..." Which should probably be whom.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move second use of current ref 6 after semi-colon.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mitch Mustain picture should be moved. Pictures below level two section headers can't be on the left side. Either move it to the right or have the photo come on the second paragraph of the section, where it could stay on the left.
  • Reply - Fixed as suggested. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My eyes are glazing trying to read all of this, so let's get to the good part: The biggest upset of the year not involving a I-AA team. (excuse me, Football Championship Subdivision. Whatever.) Jim Harbaugh should be linked. More importantly, I'd swear that his comments about USC were sarcastic; correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, this should be reflected in the article.
  • Reply - Added another wikilink as suggested (wasn't sure if I should do it after already using one earlier in the Pre-Season section). His comments were never clearly outlined as being sarcastic: his first comments were simply stating rumors that offending Carroll, and his second comments appeared to be meant to cover up his faux paus on the first --while they may not have been entirely genuine they were never considered sarcastic --rather a "fine, lets just drop the subject." --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that there's too much secondary information here. For example, Notre Dame has a whole paragraph devoted to their season before the USC game. What is this doing in an article on the USC Trojans? A brief statement or two on an opposing team is great, but I fear this is too much.
  • Reply - In this case I disagree because storylines really color college football, particularly the key games (something that is also reflected in 2005 Texas). In the case of Notre Dame, its a serious rival, and the back stories put the game in the context of that rivalry: the first game at the stadium since the Bush Push, the decision to pre-announce the green jerseys, and the complete FUBAR situation at QB leading into the game, etc. I tried to keep each game section around the same size with some variation for the major games. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rose Bowl people were criticized for inviting Illinois before the game. Most of it dealt with the fact that they wanted a traditional Big 10-Pac 10 game at all costs. Saying the controversy came only after a blowout is not entirely accurate.
  • Reply - Good observation, I've rewritten to reflect that point. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the season ended in calls for some form of Football Subdivision playoff." There was tremendous controversy last year before the bowls even started, due to the number of teams with a title-game claim. Some people thought that USC should have played in the title game, though most were put off by the Stanford loss. Maybe the pre-bowl controversy could be discussed briefly, since USC was involved.
  • Reply - I see what you're concerned with, I've re-written the sentence to reflect that it added to a continuing call for playoffs, wikilinking the article on BCS controversies. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern, however, is the size. Our readibility tool shows 62.0 KB of readable prose and over 10,000 words of prose, a massive total. I worry with articles like this that the size makes it harder to keep the writing, style etc. tight. Good luck with it, though. I may come back to look at more later, but will probably not check the entire article. There's just too much for my style of reviewing to cover in a timely fashion. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I'm going to offer my support for this article, but I do have a few comments and suggestions. The article is well-written, extremely well-cited, and comprehensive. It's comparable to other featured articles of a similar type, and there's no deal-breaking reason that I can see to deny support at this time. Comments follow: —This is part of a comment by JKBrooks85 (of 09:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • Out of necessity, you use a lot of football terminology and jargon. I've run into problems with that in the past in my CFB FACs, and I'd suggest having a non-American Wikipedian read through the article and simply list points where they don't understand what a term means. I wouldn't have them go into more detail than that to avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the article. Have someone look it over and simply write where they got confused.
  • Reply - I've tried wikilinking the most common, confusing words; and from your earlier recommendation I followed the basis of 2005 Texas and 2005 USC in adding See Alsos to articles on American football rules, American football strategy, American football positions and Glossary of American football --I hope the combination of wikilinks and see alsos will cover all aspects; otherwise this article would get even longer. Its a difficult balance. But if anyone sees anything that could use an additional wikilink, let me know! --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you've made an effort to do that, for which you deserve a lot of credit. But I'd still strongly suggest you find someone who knows nothing about football to do a quick readthrough and pick out points of difficulty. They may not be wikilinkable items -- simply things that need a bit more explanation as to why they're relevant here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few niggling non-encyclopedic phrases that bothered me; "improbable victory" was one that came to mind. I've been going through and changing them as I run across them, but watch out for that sort of thing. Though it makes the prose a bit more boring, it's usually necessary to sacrifice adjectives in order to achieve full impartiality.
  • Reply - I noticed you've made some of those changes, thanks. It was the most difficult surrounding the Stanford game which, like the Boise State-OU Fiesta Bowl, just begged for strong adjectives. I'm fine with the changes, though. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest grammar problem I've found in it is hyphenation; the most notable example of this was things like "33–yard run," which should just be 33-yard run, using a hyphen because you're creating an adjectival phrase describing the run. There's a few other odd little hyphen problems, but I'm going through and fixing them as I run across them, and as I said, they're minor. You've done a good job copyediting it; it's much better than a lot of other articles I've seen put up for FAC.
  • Reply - Thanks, I'll take a look for any more. I admit I found the WP guides confusing on this point and simply looked for what was done in 2005 Texas (where I actually found several minor errors). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For numbers, you'll need to spell out numbers less than 10 in order to follow the MOS. I've gotten a few of these, but I'm sure there's more in the article, lurking around.
  • Reply - Gotcha, I've taken a pass through for the others --I believe they're all taken care of (by searching " X " to get the single digits). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link-checking tool also returns one dead link entitled "Biggest Upset Ever?"
  • Reply - Right, on this one I was hoping the "accessed on" date would vouch for the fact that I read it when it existed, but it appears its going to be a problem. I'll eliminate it as the facts are covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the start, these are all (with the exception of the first comment) minor stylistic considerations and don't keep me from giving you my support for what is an extremely good article that ranks among Wikipedia's best. Congratulations and good work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Scout.com is one of the most notable recruiting websites (along with Rivals.com); its article here currently is a redirect to its corporate owner, Fox Interactive Media. It has had tie-ins with Sports Illustrated to cover college recruiting, as evidenced here. Actually, ESPN and SI have flipped and now ESPN uses Scout and SI uses Rivals for their high school recruiting information, their college analysis is similarly acceptable. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also will vouch for the authority of these two sites. They're pretty much the biggest names in the business, and Rivals is in partnership/has been bought by Yahoo! as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The sentence it was sourcing was mentioning celebrities at the game, and some of those celebrities were present in pictures on the page in question (the rest with the other two citations for that sentence). There's no issue of reliability in this situation. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious why you think that there is no issue of reliability. We have to rely on the site's reliablity to be sure the pics aren't photoshopped or are of the place in question, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I was actually going to write in my previous answer "unless we believe they would photoshop it, which is exceptionally unlikely" but stopped because I didn't want the reply to get too long --guess I should have: I included two other reliable sources in that citation string that, taken in with the photos, only add to their authenticity. Rush Limbaugh actually uses the same photo from the Husker Nation site in his own entry on his visit. The LA Times covers the other photos. I did not base the sentence off of that one source, when I felt one was weak I tried to double it up with something more reliable; but at the same time its nice to have an additional source with photos. --Bobak (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a photographer. I KNOW how easy it is to do photoshop tricks. It's a professional hazard you have, I don't trust pictures any more, unfortunately. Anyway, works with the backups you've given, striking it, you're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - USCRipsIt.com (despite the odd choice of URL) is an official website of the USC Athletic Department, run in conjunction with HC Pete Carroll's own professional website. Proof of this is available on the Athletic Department's football page (look at the bottom); USCRipsIt.com redirects to petecarroll.com for hosting. Thus the positions on these associated websites are official statements, direct from the source. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Since I can't find any archive of it and have removed it --but this one was by Arash Markazi, which I would've wikilinked if I could've found the archive of the actual post (thus it would've satisfied the exception under WP:SPS). The information was covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mere fact that a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article isn't enough to make them a reliable source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The point I meant to imply is that a person would read that Arash Markazi is a reporter for Sports Illustrated who covers college football, thus there would be no additional legitimize his postings on college football since he would satisfy the exception under WP:SPS, that "in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --Bobak (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - A PR release by an established broker, the statement that they're observing certain games are trading higher than others does not appear questionable, and I decided to source it directly after reading about the high prices and demand elsewhere. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check all references for last access dates. I noticed a couple missing (current refs 230, 231) but don't claim to have caught them all.
  • Reply - Fixed --those two slipped out when I did a citation review on and off between May and July. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the uploader of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_U3WtAIjY have permission to put this video up? Most stadiums restrict videoing, so I'm not sure we're allowed to link to it. (Video copyright is not an area of specialty here!)
  • Reply - Copyright is something I'm familiar with as an attorney, I was happy to find this clip (as opposed to a part of the actual broadcast) because this sort of usage is fine and will not bring any legal ramifications to this project. Thanks for reviewing all the links, I realize there's a ton. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take your word that the videographer had the right to video at the game. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Trojans plural, but Cardinal singular? Also, see WP:MOSNUM, no ordinals in dates: On October 3rd it was ... <Go Cards>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer that question. The mascot of Stanford is the Cardinal (source). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is; it's a team. Why is Trojans plural and Cardinal singular when referring to a team? The wording is awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Cardinal are always referred to in the singular. See Stanford Cardinal; the nickname is referring to the color cardinal, not the bird. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not always; I see the change was made in 1981. So I guess there's nothing to be done about how awkward the text reads, mixing singular and plural. If any of those sentences can be recast it might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, not always, but the article is talking about the game against Stanford in 2007, therefore at the time of the game, it has already been decided that the Stanford be referred to as the singular Cardinal. In any case, I defer to the nominator's (and main contributor's) decision; if he/she wants to change it, that's fine by me. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any instance in the text where it is strictly necessary to refer to Trojans v. Cardinal; to make the text read less awkwardly, it seems these instances could just be switched to USC v. Stanford. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I've done that. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; on a complete side note there's a fascinating story about how Stanford went from the Indians to the Cardinal, I recommend finding the story. But yes, they had their "want to be like Harvard" moment and picked the Cardinal (Harvard is the Crimson). The other nickname Stanford is called is "The Farm", an old reference to how it was founded on Leland Stanford's ranch. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing: who knew anyone from The Farm ever aspired to "be like Harvard" or march in boring straight marching band lines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all ordinals in dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images—This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • There are too many images in this article - in many places, the text is sandwiched between images. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for help on image placement.
  • Reply - I've now shrank, moved and when all else failed removed the images to prevent squeezing and stackups. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Done; though the specific page where the image was taken isn't available, I linked to the football page (incidentally, that logo is only used by the football team). --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean it isn't available? Is it a subscription only site? If so, we could still link to it and indicate that. We really need a source. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean I can't find the image file on the USC Athletics page anymore; they redid their website last season. The own the trademark and it came from them, and here are two ways to show it: (1) the USC Graphic Identity Program identifies (without the image) the "Trojan Football Helmet Head" (which is different from the general Trojan Head) and notes that "All the USC athletic marks are limited to the Department of Athletics", thus the source is the Athletic Department website; (2) you can see it on the sides of the helmets). The image file itself isn't listed anymore from what I can tell, post redesign. Thus I can correctly identify the source of the trademark as the USC Athletic Department, but I can no longer point to the exact file on their website. I hope thats satisfactory. --Bobak (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more sources for the image's ownership from the USC bookstore: The Trojan Football Helmet Head on a helmet, a cap, a bill, a shirt, a DVD, and a pennant. --Bobak (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the Way Back Machine work for this? Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem to work. I don't think there's an issue because I've clearly identified the trademark/copyright owner of the image, the original source and the only one with legal powers over it. --Bobak (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked with someone more knowledgeable than myself and this will work. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:P-danelomario.jpg - Please list the copyright holder and explain in more detail why this image is necessary to the article. Why won't words suffice? I am unconvinced as of yet that a fair use image is necessary in this instance. The player is only briefly mentioned and his death is not better explained through this image.
  • Reply - Photo removed. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I feel a bit uncomfortable uploading photos that aren't GNU or my own CC onto Commons; I've already been burned by people who've done that to my photos but forgot to actually write that mine are under CC. While I like that Carroll photo, I've recently uploaded my own photo of Pete Carroll to Commons if someone really needs one. Thank you for your input! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These should be easy to deal with. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All image concerns have been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as much as I loathe USC, I must say that this is an excellent article. Very well written and referenced. Dare we say too many references. I counted five references regarding the pre-season expectations. But that won't keep me from offering my support. Dincher (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The excess markup (example, bolding on "Reply") isn't needed and does not aid readability on the FAC; in fact, it makes it harder for me to scan to determine what has been done or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*'''Reply''' - No problem, I'll stop --I was actually doing it to help myself keep track of where I'd responded... (Also based off of 2005 Texas' FAC). --Bobak (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find a link anywhere in the article to USC Trojans football, which probably belongs in the lead. Maybe it's there somewhere and I'm just missing it? (It's in the infobox, but can/should it be linked in the article?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an instance where I copied the format of 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, which does not do that. I could link the "University of Southern California Trojans football" part of very first sentence, would that work? Otherwise I'm not sure where to place it (its currently linked in the infobox and the season box at the bottom). --Bobak (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by karanacs. I think the article needs a bit more copyediting. I have copyedited the first half but recommend that someone go through the game notes. In particular, I see a lot of sentences pulled together with semicolons that really shouldn't be, and many times sentences don't flow well within a paragraph. I also think the lead could be fleshed out a bit with some information about the preseason stuff - player who died, how many players returned and left. Most of the sources look good to me, but is USCripsit.com a reliable source? Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. Your copyediting has been excellent thusfar. I didn't want to include the player who died in the lede because, while it was tragic, it didn't make as much impact as someone like the head coach or starting QB (I'm also worried about it reading like its been padded). As was noted above, in the article and on the website in question: USCripsit is an official website of the USC Athletic Department, the just --for whatever reason-- picked a silly URL. I also don't get why, but there it is. :-) --Bobak (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have read it through once and I think it is in excellent shape overall. I am reading it a second time to look for little things.
  1. One small thing is an imprecise word in the last section. It says "several" Trojans were.... Can we count them up and give the exact number?
Johntex\talk 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "several" to "five". I see how that was confusing as it goes right into all-conference which is separate from all-American. --Bobak (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Disclosure: I peer-reviewed this article and copyedited it pre-FAC, but I had nothing to do with the fantastic comprehensiveness and sourcing of this article. The prose is also much improved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes. There is a hidden table within the text; this doesn't work on mirrors, on printable versions, and causes WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, see WP:MOS. Coaching staff has –Present, which is incorrect capitalization and also breaches WP:MOSDATE#Precise language (pls check throughout for similar). There is a left-aligned image under the "Idaho" heading, which breaches WP:MOS#Images, pls check throughout, there are others. Is "Comments" an encyclopedic section heading? The placement of the first "See also" template under "Before the season" is awkward. A question was raised at WT:MOS about the use of #1 vs. No. 1 in prose (versus in tables); pls inquire at MoS if that was sorted or added to MoS, as this article uses a lot of #'s in the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK (maybe you can work on getting them to improve that to something more encyclopedic and descriptive :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made the following suggested fixes: (1) Made hidden table visible; (2) fixed the coaching table, I actually removed "present" based off of my reading of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language; (3) fixed all photos to avoid the left-image issue, for ASU I followed an example used in 2005 Texas where an image was placed to the right of the box score; (4) combined the first two See Alsos to avoid the awkwardness; (5) caught an in-text instance of "No." versus "#", all are now "#" --I'm keeping all as "#" to keep consistent with the schedule box template. --Bobak (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck most of above, two points. The layout guidelines for football articles are unfortunate, with a section called "Comments" (unencyclopedic and not very descriptive) and the large amount of tables plopped right into the middle of the prose, interrupting the article, when they might be moved to the bottom. But if that's what they want, and no one here has objected, so be it. Also, you may have misunderstood my query about # versus No. For example: USC ended the season as #2 in the final Coaches Poll and #3 in the final AP Poll with one first-place vote. A query was raised at MoS about the use of # in prose, suggesting that # should be reserved for tables, while No. should be used within text. USC ended the season as No. 2 in the final Coaches Poll and No. 3 in the final AP Poll with one first-place vote. I don't know how or if that was resolved at MoS. I'm hoping you'll do the follow-up :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a request for clarification at WP:MOS, in the meantime I'm fine with switching all "#" with "No.". --Bobak (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the change is necessary; I really don't know how that was resolved, and the MoS archives are daunting. I left a query for Tony1 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad someone found the old discussion, I'm leaning towards "No." over "number". Not only is it less confusing to American readers, considering all the rankings it could make this article even longer... --Bobak (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swapped all rankings "#"s with "No. " --Bobak (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a non-Football fan

  • Great, you're the person we've been waiting for. --Bobak (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USC accomplished two major feats: The Trojans became the first team to win six straight Pac-10 titles, and became the first team in major college football to achieve six straight 11-win seasons." As the lead says the team can be called both "USC" and "The Trojans", the first part of the sentence reads funny. Read it as "USC accomplished two major feats: USC became..."or "The Trojans accomplished two major feats: The Trojans became".
  • Went with replacing "USC" with "The Trojans" and "The Trojans" with "they" to cut down on repeated words. --Bobak (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same sentence, "became" and "became"
  • swapped second with "were" --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unfamiliar with football terms, but does the hyphen in "4-3 formation" in the infobox substitute the words "to" or "and"? If so, WP:DASH says it should an endash. Also occurs in the prose, along with "3-4 defense formation"
  • As far as I know, and in this instance I am not as familiar with the history and evolution of terminology in college defensive strategy, the terms for defense (3-4, 4-3, 3-3-5, etc) have not been used to substitute "and"; its hard to tell now as people simply say "three four" or "three three five". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's practice at FLC to order references numerically. Is that usually done at FA?
  • I don't know here, but the order I placed them in under the current draft was in order of relevance to the fact they cited. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Trojans ended the 2006 season with a victory in the 2007 Rose Bowl Game and a #4 ranking in both polls" what polls? I'm guessing the Coaches and AP polls mentioned in the Lede, but I can't be sure
  • "As expected, USC was at the top of the first Coaches Poll" Who expected?
  • The national pre-season polls mentioned and cited just two sentences earlier. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Louisiana State University (LSU) with 4 votes, #3 Florida with 6 votes, and #5 Michigan with 2 votes." Why not "University of Florida" and "University of Michigan"?
  • In college sports, teams are often referred to formally by the single name rather than the "University of" for the sake of simplicity. I have used all the most common and accepted names for teams. With that said, there are a few teams that are better known by their acronym, like LSU (or USC), and in the instance here I made sure to spell out the acronym the first time it was used to avoid confusion). --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sports Illustrated online" should it be capitalised as in "Sports Illustrated Online"? Or maybe even "the Sports Illustrated website"
  • Swapped to the website's actual name, which is apparently "SI.com". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key in the table needs expanding. As a non-football fan, it left me confused:
    • What does RB, LB, WR, C mean?
    • What do the stars represent?
    • What is the ESPN number?
  • Ah-hah... that table was just set stay expanded at all times, I see the resulting confusion: I've moved the See Alsos that were originally above the Roster to above the Recruiting section, which is the first instance of heavy references to positions and terminology. I've also added a third See Also for Recruiting (college athletics), which goes over star ratings. I have changed the college recruit template to clarify the ESPN number as a grade; it's out of 100, and I've changed the final part of the template to explain that. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mitch Mustain, who was 8–0 as a starter" what does 8–0 mean?
  • Clarified with "8–0 win/loss record". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Louisiana, Florida and Michigan, links point to the football team articles. The link in Mitch's sentence for Arkansas points to University of Arkansas. The next sentence mentions the Razorbacks, but it's not clear that this is the name of Arkansas's team.
  • Gotcha, fixed link and swapped "Razorbacks" for "team". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the paragraph regarding Jordan Cameron necessary? Again, as a non-football fan, he doesn't seem notable to the 2007 team since he never did anything. <shrugs>
  • I'm leaning towards keeping it since it was a part of the offseason for a team that effectively began in spring practice before the season. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the colours used to represent in the Schedule table?
  • The colors are green for win, red for loss. I think explaining that isn't particularly necessary. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • space needed in "Temple(1988)"
  • Good catch --Fixed. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1922-1929" endash for date ranges
  • 3 columns with {{reflist}} isn't recommended. It was part of WP:CITE until today (Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided.), but it was lost when most of it was moved to WP:FOOT.
  • Fixed --woo, doggy its even longer now :-)... --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I made these changes using two scripts. I checked them before hitting send so nothing should have messed up. Revert if you want to. Support UCLA. Ooops, I meant just "Support" :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2007_USC_Trojans_football_team&oldid=1146670751"