Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Humanitarian Bowl

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 SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [1].

2008 Humanitarian Bowl[edit]

Nominator(s): Strikehold (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. I've solicited feedback from several individuals who have contributed featured articles in the same subject area. The article has undergone the GA process, and I have worked to address the feedback I have received. I think the article is ready to undergo the added scrutiny of a FA candidacy and solicit comments from a wider audience. I also think the article compares favorably with similar ones in the same field. Strikehold (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - Good to see someone other than JKBrooks nominate a bowl article. Unfortunately, I don't think this is as refined as the bowl FAs that I've read as a reviewer. Here are some examples of issues from the first few sections.

  • The date in the first sentence should be flipped since this is an American subject. Instead of 30 December, make it December 30. Check for this throughout.
  • My understanding of WP:MOS was that either form is acceptable as long as consistency is maintained. I'm an American and don't prescribe to mmddyyyy being the strict de facto American usage... Of course, if it's an issue I can change it.
  • It is only optional if the article is not associated with an English-speaking country. If it is, then it needs to follow that country's preference. Unless it is a military articles, lol.--2008Olympianchitchat 10:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed.
  • Comma after Roady's Trucks Stops? And consider removing the United States link, since it doesn't add much.
  • You are correct, both fixed.
  • "Maryland took a quick lead within the two minutes of play". Is first missing?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • Unless "Battle of the Unbeatens" is a title of some sort, the two capitalized letters should be made lower-case.
  • A few sources capitalized it as a proper noun. I thought of making it lowercase IAW MOS, but decided that since it was a potential marketing ploy it would be better treated as a proper noun.
  • From the "battle of unbeatens" section: "the last of which were considered heavy favorites for that berth." Is this referring just to Utah, or to Boise State as well? If it's just about Utah, change "were" to "was".
  • Since it is referring to a team of many individuals, I treated it as a plural. Just as if it were replaced with the plural nickname "the Utes were..." Reworded.
  • "at-large,". Move the comma outside the quote mark.
  • Hmm... These references ([2], [3], [4]) say to put the comma inside.
  • This rule is something where overall Wikipedia style reflects British English rather than American English. Here's a link. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. Okay, changed.
  • Something else to check for is passive voice. Two examples from this section are "would be ended" and "went on to be defeated by".
  • Fixed.
  • ACC team selection: NCAA link isn't needed, with one in the previous section.
  • Removed.
  • WAC team selection: "the Humanitarian Bowl looked to Nevada. Nevada...". Don't like having the same word appear consecutively like this. Try using the team nickname for the second one.
  • Fixed.

I feel bad about opposing since you appear to be an FAC newcomer, but the same standards must be applied equally to everyone. The best advice I can give is to ask an uninvolved (non-college football editor) for help. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to feel bad. The reason I submitted it as a FAC is to improve the article and to elicit constructive criticism. And yes, this is my first featured article candidate, but I've been through the featured list process, so I knew what I was getting myself into :) Thanks for the comments. Strikehold (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics for Idaho Statesman in WAC team selection. Check for other printed publications later in the text; I see a couple in the buildup section. The two quotes in this paragraph are covered by the reference at the end of the paragraph, right? Just checking.
  • You're right. I didn't think that you italicized links, but see that it does say to in the MOS. Yes, I added a cite immediately after each quotation.
  • Two Independence Bowl links in the section; the second could be comfortably chopped.
  • One removed.
  • Maryland offense vs. Nevada defense: "and was often utilized in reverses and other trick plays due to his breakaway speed, which gained 208 rushing yards." Needs tweaking. He gained those yards, not his speed.
  • Reworded.
  • As a part of the MoS tuneup that Sandy suggested below, there is a special code for minus signs that we should use: −
  • Changed.
  • Nevada offense vs. Maryland defense: "Under the system, the offense attempts keep the opposing defense off balance..." Missing "to" before keep.
Fixed.
  • Maryland player suspensions: "with different players violating the rules to seperate degrees." This is called a "noun-plus-ing" sentence structure, a hard-to-spot grammar error. Maybe "as different players violated the rules to seperate degrees."?
  • What grammar rules does this violate? I've seen "noun plus -ing" mentioned several times on wikipedia, but never anywhere else. Do you mean there is a change in tense in the sentence? I just corrected that, otherwise, I don't get it.
  • Hard to understand, isn't it? Luckily, Tony1 wrote an excellent guide that shows how to find and fix this kind of sentence. I'll fix that one myself for you, but I recommend reading the guide for future reference. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You called it a "grammatical error". The link you provide does not show that it is incorrect. Instead, its author basically seems to say that he doesn't like the practice. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you still haven't shown that it is grammatically incorrect. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it comes from Tony, the grammar expert, I would say that it [noun + -ing] is probably incorrect. All the same, I will contact him for verification. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this Tony fellow can explain the tenet it contradicts or provide a reliable reference, then great. Otherwise, being wikipedia, an "expert" opinion means nothing to me. I just want to know why. For the record, this doesn't apply to the article here, because I think the edit Giants made is fine. I just want to know for future reference, one way or the other, whether it is actually incorrect or not. Strikehold (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game summary: "The game was televised on ESPN and drew a television rating of 2.1 for an estimated 3,039,000 viewers which was a 218% increase from the previous season's game." I'd add a comma after "viewers" for better readability.
  • Technically speaking, I don't believe you should add a comma, because it is a dependent clause. I broke it up into two sentences as it was borderline run-on anyway.
  • First quarter: "Egekeze made good the extra point...". Remove "good".
  • Changed all instances of the phrase.
It's looking better as I get further in. My oppose probably won't stand for much longer, assuming these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did strike the oppose above, and will offer more comments on a talk page. When this is not a red link, please click on it to find said comments. Need to go now, but will hopefully post there either tonight or tomorrow. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After receiving a message on my talk page, I returned to find an oppose from Dabomb87 at the bottom. Even when I read the article, it didn't seem as refined as the similar ones that JKBrooks has nominated in the past. With that in mind, I'm going to stay neutral for now, and recommend that you find an copy-editor who is new to the article to help polish it further. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • It is the website affiliated with College Football News, a respected publication in the field, and FOX Sports.
  • Affliated or put out by? That makes a big difference in reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CollegeFootballNews.com is actually a re-direct to cfn.scout.com, so I'm pretty certain it is the internet source for CFN. It is at a minimum affiliated with (possibly owned by) FOX Sports. Scout.com (along with competitor Rivals.com put out by Yahoo! Sports) is also one of the more respected recruiting news outlets.
  • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is referenced twice, but not used as a stand-alone source in either. It is used as an example of opinion pieces, which state game predictions in the first instance, and as one of three examples of the Maryland team being called "schizophrenic" in the second instance.
  • Understanding that as long as it's clearly used as an opinion, that's fine.
  • Removed. It wasn't a standalone citation, just used as an example. But I think there is enough information from the other cites in the para to back up the material.
  • Current ref 31 (Blue turf at ...) is lacking a publisher.
  • Current ref 47 (Nevada vs Maryland...) is lacking a publisher
  • Added pub: Bleacher Report (see above).
  • Current ref 71 (Eric Detweiler..) is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. And welcome to FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I gave the article a quick copyedit. There were a few issues that I fixed, and a few more that you may want to address. *Kickoff or kick-off? You had both versions, so I changed them all to kickoff.

  • Thanks.
  • "It was announced that ... suspensions" in the lede doesn't say if the players actually were suspended. I'd suggest changing it to active voice, something like "Seven Maryland players, including six starters, were suspended for part of the game because of ...."
  • Fixed.
  • "Back into the game" is a bit colloquial. Same with "put the game away"; they're not very precise terms.
  • Agreed, reworded.
  • The last sentence of the lede is somewhat awkward. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences.
  • Done.
  • "the last of which were"; There's only one "last" thing in any given list. Was it just Utah that was considered a favorite to appear, or was more than one team considered a favorite?
  • Point taken. Reworded.
  • You've got a lot of past perfect sentences, things like "had been considered". I changed most of them, but I'd suggest using the plain past tense where possible.
  • Noted.
  • I added a fact tag for the NCAA rule requiring N.C. State to find an at-large bid. I've never heard of that rule, and even if I had, it'd be a good idea to cite that for other folks.
  • From NCAA Postseason Football Handbook: "In the case of a conference contractual affiliation, all conference teams with winning records must be placed in one of the contracted bowl games before any institution with a record of six wins and six losses may be placed in a contracted bowl game." I've clarified the statement and added a cite.
  • "Terps" also seems a bit colloquial. I've only heard of it being used in regular conversation ... does the university use it?
  • Yes, it is a nickname officially sanctioned by the school (actually probably more commonly used than Terrapins). It is used on the helmets, apparel, the athletic sites domain name, etc. ([5] [6]).
  • Can I suggest writing a sentence about and citing the order of bowl-game selections in the ACC? You've got who picked whom, but not why those bowl games were allowed to pick those teams.
  • I'll do that. Thanks.
  • That statistical comparison box in the pre-game buildup section is really nice. About the only thing I can suggest is moving up the footnotes to the appropriate subheads -- not the source notes, but the ones explaining yards per game and points per game.
  • Yeah, I did that to try to keep the table's appearance cleaner, but you have a good point. Fixed.
  • "Tenth-ranked Kevin Basped and fifteenth-ranked Dontay Moch": Nationally, right?
  • Yes, clarified.
  • When you're describing the pistol offense, you say that the QB lines up four yards from the center. In the article about the pistol, it says the QB lines up three yards away, with the RB one yard behind that. Which one is correct?
  • Which source are you looking at? In the American Football Monthly, I didn't see a mention of QB/C alignment; in the Nevada Appeal article it says: "Instead of the quarterback being seven yards behind d the center, he moved the quarterback to about four yards behind the center and put the running back behind the quarterback."
  • You repeat the figures about Kapernick and the Nevada offense in both the WAC Team Selection section and the Nevada offense section.
  • Fixed.
  • "Cosh was to return to": did he? Did Pearman do what he announced he was going to do?
  • Reworded.
  • In your lead paragraph in the game summary section, you cite the ESPN preview. Do you think it would better to link to the game recap directly?
  • Ah. That was there as a reference to it being televised on ESPN, which the recap didn't state. But I can remove it altogether, since it is stated in the Nielsen sources.
  • I'd suggest wikilinking each official's position in the game summary lead.
  • Good point, added.
  • Overall, I'd suggest putting citations at the sentence they refer to, rather than grouping them at the end of the paragraph. In the first paragraph of the game summary in particular, it gets a little confusing about what is referring to which.
  • In that para: Source [1] contains all the information in the first three sentences. Sources [78–80] contain the information in the last sentence. None of them contain it all however, so all four of those are needed (I removed the superfluous preview ref as per above). I believe it is in accordance with MLA style guidelines that you only need a reference at the end to reference all the above information in that para.
  • I'm sorry ... I didn't mean that you should remove it, merely redirect it to the game recap instead of the preview, thus saving someone the task of clicking an extra link from the ESPN page. And if that's official MLA style, who am I to argue?
  • When it happens, I'd suggest creating a subsection about the 2009 NFL Draft and which players from each team were selected. There probably won't be a cite that points directly to the game as deciding where each player was drafted, but it can be inferred that the player's final collegiate game probably had something to do with his draft status.

Overall, it's a pretty good article, and I'll take another look after you've gotten some more comments. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm continuing to copy edit, and managed to dig up a copy of the game. When I get the time, I'll watch that to refresh my memory and tackle the game summary section. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment — There's a pretty big sequencing error in the third quarter game recap. I've gone through and changed stuff in the first half, but this is one you may want to tackle yourself, since it'll entail a bit of rewriting. According to what you've got written, Da'Rel Scott first carries the ball after the big fumble play. According to the tape I've got and the ESPN play-by-play, he does his two carries first, then Turner does his sack/fumble dance. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I see what you are saying. The only thing that is incorrect, as I understand it, is that Scott made his first touches before the fumble extravaganza, not on the subsequent carries he made. I've corrected it (I believe).
  • Support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS tuneup needed, and there are mixed date formats (some dates are international style rather than U.S.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were all ddmmyyyy, except for the infobox, which automatically formats it in mmddyyyy. I changed all instances of dates in the text to mmddyyyy to match the infobox for consistency. Also, what MOS fixes are needed other than the edits you've already made? Strikehold (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:Humanitarian Bowl logo.png - We need to add the name of the copyright holder to the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay..Done.

Support All issues resolved. Great job.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed.
  • I hate possessives unless absolutely necessary: the two teams' first meeting. -> the first meeting between the two teams.
  • That adds three extra syllables and unnecessary words.
  • But the goal is not to be as terse as possible. Otherwise, we'd have contractions all over the place, wouldn't we? It's just a preference, especially with possessives on words that end in s, because those are always troublesome. I'll still support, however.
  • I think the goal is, generally speaking, to be as terse as possible without compromising readability or understanding. Contractions are a different story because they are considered colloquial. Like you said, though, a matter of opinion.
  • "12th" -> "twelfth"
  • From WP:Numbers: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals"
  • "or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words." Your choice, but I think ordinals in prose should be avoided if possible.
  • I hear you, that's just the general principle I go by, to expand one through ten, and use numerals for higher numbers.
  • "wildly inconsistent"? Reads like OR to me, just "an inconsistent team" would be more neutral.
  • This is expanded upon and cited extensively in the main body. Here are some sources which specifically use the phrase "wildly inconsistent" (Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Bleacher Report, Asheville Citizen-Times), and it is not stated as a fact, but rather as something that has been said. Since "inconsistent" is obviously a subjective phrase this has to be true for it to be included. I added quotation marks to the phrase in the article to make this more clear.
  • OK.
  • "even able" -> "able"
  • Changed.
  • "was with the WAC which has generally" ->" "was with the WAC, which has generally" Commas are used before independent clauses.
  • I believe that is a dependent clause.
  • It would be if you used the word "that."
  • Ah I see what you mean. You're right, but because it's a nonessential clause, not independent (slightly different meaning). I've made the change (and caught a couple more). Thanks.
Sorry, yes, I did mean nonessential.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Utes were considered" -> "Utah was considered" No other team names are used in that paragraph.
  • This was to address another editors comments about not wanting "...Utah. Utah..." In context, and from the link it should be clear to which it refers.
  • OK, I see.
  • Yeah, I don't like it either, but meh...
  • "Partially because of this fact," I'd remove, because it is redundant when you read the rest of the sentence.
  • Agreed.
  • "Kaepernick led the Wolf Pack" -> "Kaepernick had led the Wolf Pack" This game was held in the time before the bowl game.
  • Past perfect tense is not needed there because the first part of the sentence indicates it took place beforehand.
  • Tenses should be consistent. If the bowl game is in past tense, then actions that happened before then need to be in past perfect. I'll still support, however.
  • You are correct insofar as that the past perfect is something that has a use, but it shouldn't be used in cases where the timeline is clear from context. That would introduce a redundancy as in: "Previously, he had..."
  • "Kaepernick also threw" -> "Kaepernick also had thrown"
  • See above comment.
  • Tenses should be consistent. If the bowl game is in past tense, then actions that happened before then need to be in past perfect. I'll still support, however.

*"He made all five extra point attempts" -> "He made all five extra-point attempts"

  • Fixed.
  • All of the dates in the references are still in international format instead of mmddyyy.--2008Olympianchitchat 10:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please see the WP:FAC instructions and refrain from adding templates; removing them prior to archiving is time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the instructions state "reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header."--2008Olympianchitchat 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noun plus -ing: The nominator's fix reads much better now that this urchin has been expunged, especially in formal prose: "Friedgen stated that the curfew violations occurred over several nights, and that different players violated the rule to separate degrees". (I've added a "that" to the second of this double statement, to clarify that it's still attributable to Friedgen rather than Wikipedia's "voice"—reads better on the micro-level, even you can work out that this is the intention by thinking about it.) Strictly speaking, the noun plus -ing needs a possessive noun that "owns" the action: "with the players' violating ...". This is ungainly. Tony (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comma should be removed, however, as it creates a comma splice. Now that the action is attributed to Friedgen rather than to the players, the second clause has become a dependent clause as it has no subject of its own.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Needs work on the prose, these are examples from the lead and first few sections:

  • "The game was played at Bronco Stadium in Boise, Idaho and was the 12th edition of the Humanitarian Bowl." The "was ... was" repetition is a bit jarring. Maybe "The game, played at Bronco Stadium in Boise, Idaho, was the 12th edition of the Humanitarian Bowl."
  • I have to disagree. There's nothing wrong with the phrasing there.
  • "The featured match-up was between what was called a "wildly inconsistent" Maryland tea" Usually, the lead doesn't need cites, but this quote: "wildly inconsistent" does.
  • Added.
  • "The results were an offensive shoot-out." Should be singular; one game produces one result "The result was an offensive shoot-out."
  • Changed.
  • "He had been one of the suspended players, but scored twice in the final quarter to help secure a victory for the Terrapins." This is a false contrast—the fact that he was suspended doesn't contradict the fact that he scored twice in the final quarter.
  • Disagree. The two are quite related. He was suspended for almost three quarters of the game, and therefore it is unusual that he was so decisive in the victory. This is conveyed in the media coverage (like the Washington Post's tongue-in-cheek "Scott arrives right on time" headline).
  • "Before the selections, the ACC announced that 2008 would be the final year that it would have a conference tie-in for the game due to travel and cost considerations."-->Before the selections, the ACC announced that due to travel and cost considerations, 2008 would be the final year that it would have a conference tie-in for the game.
  • Your suggestion isn't really better. it removes words critical to the sentence's meaning ("this game"... The ACC still has other tie-ins), and moved a non-essential phrase into the middle of the sentence which obfuscates the main point. I've made an attempt to streamline the sentence.
  • "which has generally fielded its champion in the game." I think "usually" is the correct word here.
  • The words are exactly synonymous ([7]).
  • "Initially, it was speculated that the WAC championship team, Boise State, would make its fifth appearance in the bowl played in its home stadium." Source? Who did the speculating?
  • It wasn't cited because it is expounded upon in depth and cited in the next paragraph. I've added a source directly to that statement, though.
  • "At the end of the regular season, there were three undefeated teams from non-Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conferences, and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules required only one to be given a berth in a BCS game." Too many ideas in one sentence, split it up.
  • Disagree. There are two ideas in this statement. And they are very interconnected.
  • "and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules required only one to be given a berth in a BCS game." Why the past tense (required)? I haven't been keeping up with sports that much these days, but has that rule changed?
  • It is for tense consistency. It isn't relevant to the article subject what the rule says now.
  • "and instead went on to meet Tulsa in the 2009 GMAC Bowl." Too wordy, try: "and instead played against Tulsa in the 2009 GMAC Bowl." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, this is really simply a matter of preference. There's nothing inherently wrong with the text as is. Strikehold (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this to "met", I didn't want to use "played" because it was stated similarly for other teams. Strikehold (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general reply: Yes, quite a few of my concerns are "matter[s] of preference" and there is nothing *wrong* with the original text. However, criterion 1a defines "well-written" prose as "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". As an example, take my last point. The original text is technically correct. However, it is a bit wordy and could be made crisper. My suggestion may not be the best, but I think it is an improvement. If you still think my grounds for opposing are unconvincing, I will try to find a few more examples later. As Giants said above, it is definitely better than it was (I changed to "Weak oppose"), but it is not as refined as other bowl game articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets FA criteria, well written and referenced. Dincher (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (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/2008_Humanitarian_Bowl&oldid=1088720740"