Portal:College football/Selected Content/Nominations/Archive

Following is a list of previous nominations that have either gone on to be Selected Articles or Pictures or did not have enough support and have been archived here. Articles and Pictures that have failed nomination may be renominated if the quality is improved.

Successful article nominations
This is a very well-written, well-cited article about the 2005 college football national champions.--NMajdan &bull;talk 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2005 Texas Longhorn football team
 * Nominated & Support- per reasons above. --NMajdan &bull;talk 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I'd like it for March. -- MECU ˜ talk 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a GA class article. It is detailed and well-cited and is about a very successful and well-known program in college football.--NMajdan &bull;talk 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oklahoma Sooners football
 * Nominated & Support- per reasons above. --NMajdan &bull;talk 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I think this shouldbe summertime-ish, June or July. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a very thorugh article on one of the better known CFB teams. Johntex\talk 20:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a GA class article. It is detailed and well-cited and covers a very unique game in college football.--NMajdan &bull;talk 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fifth Down
 * Nominated & Support- per reasons above. --NMajdan &bull;talk 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I think this should be summertime-ish, June or July. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a good article on a very interesting historical event. Johntex\talk 20:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was selected today as a GA. Johntex\talk 09:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2006 Alamo Bowl
 * Support - Johntex\talk 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As a GA, this auto-qualifies and thus doesn't need to be nominated and go through this. I think we should just have all GA's, once they are selected, be put into the pool of qualified candidates below. Once we have ~27 GA's, only GA's should be listed (I calculated 27 by 1/month for the off season, Jan-July, and 1/week for Aug-Dec.) -- MECU ≈ talk 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Former GA. I think the college section is back to GA section though it has not been renominated. The pro section is not bad except it lasks refereces. --Johntex\talk 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vince Young
 * Nom and support- per above --Johntex\talk 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - The '2002 and 2003' and '2004' sections should either be lengthened or combined. Other than that, it would be a great addition to the Portal.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support My concern is that VY isn't considered a "college football" player. I agree it's GA quality (most of it) but this really isn't college football material anymore. Why wouldn't we have Steve Young then for the same reason? Though, he was just 2 seasons ago... but he's a NFL guy now. I just think there would be better articles about CFB. (This would have been great a year ago though). -- MECU ≈ talk 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My own personal opinion is that college players are still part of this project even after they graduate. Just as I consider Vince Young to still be part of the CFB wiki-project, I also consider him to still be part of the Texas wiki-project, even though he has moved to Tennessee.  Conceptually, I have no issue with Steve Young or any pro player being selected content here. In practice, I would have an objection to the Steve Young page because the college section of his article is so short. Johntex\talk 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I think it will be fine since he was just recently in college and hasn't really established himself as a NFL guy, yet. Picking Manning or Young wouldn't really be appropriate I think though. -- MECU ≈ talk 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Successful picture nominations
Good, high quality, high resolution image I found on Flickr. Is of the 2006 National Champions, so good possibility for February image. Shows a pass play and the formation and the roles of the various players (pass blockers, pass rushers, receivers, linebackers). --<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Florida Gators Game Action.jpg
 * Support That's a good one. I was hesitant at first, but looking at it, you can see linemen, linebackers, QB, WR, ref and ump and corners and I think even a safety! That's just about everyone on the field. Good stuff. -- MECU ˜ talk 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The biggest rivalry there is in football. --BigDT 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:2005 Army Navy Game Winners.jpg
 * Nominate and support --BigDT 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support - not bad, but there are so many Army Navy Air-Force photos available since any photo taken by an on-duty government official (including servicemen/women) is in the public domain. Therefore, I think we can find better photos of the military academies with a little work.  If none show the trophy, then I could possibly be swayed to support. Johntex\talk 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support I agree there are lots of service academy photos. This one may be good to use during the Army-Navy Week unless we find a better one. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll kick things off with this nomination. Its an image of the Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium that I took. It is a high quality, high resolution image that shows the front of the stadium along with the flora in front. --<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:OMSFront.jpg
 * Nominate & Support- For reasons above. --<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It would have been nice to get the full OU on the ground into this image. But it's still nice otherwise. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Mecu about the full OU, but it is very nice none-the-less. Johntex\talk 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support For same reasons above. Also, the nom is very POV. Should I assume sarcasm?↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, we know the best rivalry game is played under a ferris wheel and a giant guy in a cowboy hat. Johntex\talk 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's only huge in a military area. I just assumed it was like that everywhere.  Around here, when Army and Navy play, even people who hate sports care. --BigDT 05:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing special about this picture, I just like it since it looks like the QB is throwing the ball to you. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Will Proctor-Clemson.jpg
 * Nom & Support -- MECU ≈ talk 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Wow, great picture. There is a lot more in this photo than just a player and a team. Great demonstration of gameday atmosphere and pressure, quarterback mechanics and a little offensive line formation.--<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - awesome picture. Johntex\talk 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very nice one to use if it's actually free. Unfortunately, the flickr page  says "All rights reserved".  --BigDT 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was freely licensed when I uploaded it. It was never flickr-reviewed, so I'll have to contact the user on flickr to see if they'll change it. Until then, this can't be used. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * License changed to, see the link by BigDT to see the image and verify the license is this. -- MECU ≈ talk 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this picture on Commons and I think it is fabulous. I nominated it for FP, but it failed because the photo experts thought the focus was too soft, the light too dim, and the angle too unusual. I particularly love the unusual angle. The focus I think is not overly soft for an action shot. You be the judge. Johntex\talk 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:060909-N-9693M-010.jpg Photo from commons of football tackle
 * Support (as nominator) Johntex\talk 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom (and FAC). -- MECU ≈ talk 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. ↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a photo of Virginia Tech's Highty Tighties during our pre-game walk. Basically, they parade the band and the cheerleaders and then the team comes through. It's a big part of the gameday experience. --BigDT 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:VirginiaTech-HightyTighties-HokieWalk.jpg
 * Nominate and support --BigDT 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - very illustrative of the topic. Johntex\talk 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. ↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since many schools will have spring scrimmages coming up, I nominate this image from an intra-team scrimmage.
 * Image:2006 UT football fall scrimmage.JPG
 * Support (as nominator) Johntex\talk 06:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It'd be great if we had a spring practice article to go with this. -- MECU ≈ talk 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. ↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Great historical photo of a Sooners football team. The best part is since it is black and white I don't have to look at those god-awful Crimson and Cream colors - JUST KIDDING! (Photo uploaded to Commons by NMajdan)
 * Image:1915 Sooner Football team.png
 * Support (as nominator) Johntex\talk 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- MECU ≈ talk 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course. ↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsuccessful article nominations
The 2007 BCS NC Champs. It has lots of information and seems fairly complete. I did just re-rate it a B, since the last rating was during the season. A little weak on references in the text, but has some and there are refs for all the stats. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2006 Florida Gators football team
 * Nom & Support - per reasons above. (Is this necessary?)-- MECU ≈ talk 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to see this as a Selected Article but I can't support it just because they won the NC. A lot still needs to be done to this article. It needs more citations, for one; a little longer lead; more prose about the pre and post-season. I did a little wikifying myself today on it but it still needs some work.--<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - This article is on a good path, but I can't support it yet. There are way too few references for an article this size.  There are also prose problems that need to be addressed. Johntex\talk 20:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsuccessful picture nominations
This photo is of the Georgia Dome just prior to kickoff of the bowl formerly known as the Peach Bowl. The smoke from the pre-game pyrotechnics is still in the air. --BigDT 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Panorama of Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium during pre-game of Rice at Texas. Johntex\talk 18:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:2006 VT UGA CFABowl kickoff.jpg
 * Nominate and support --BigDT 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - not a bad photo except a little hard to know it is college football except for the Hokies printed in the end zone. Johntex\talk 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not really that interesting of a picture. Other than the Chik-fil-a logo in the center field and VT name in the endzone. Does show how they lineup against the kickoff though, but I just don't think the image is all-that. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:UT-Rice-Panorama-092307-original.jpg
 * Oppose because of the big head on the left ... the one in the middle isn't great, but it's not that bad of an obstruction. The one on the left is a real problem, though. -- B  19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm going to agree with B; the panorama is good, except for that head. *pokes it* —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Insert obligatory Fathead (brand) joke) -- B 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not wild about the heads myself. If I had been the photographer I think I would have asked them to hunch-down, but I found this on flickr and just got the photographer to change the license so we can use it.  I think it is just good enough, but maybe not. Johntex\talk 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a cropped version. I don't know if this is at all useful ... but I think the heads are bad. -- B  11:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks B. It is nice to have the cropped version, but I unfortunately the impact of the panorama is gone.  Given the problematic foreground, and the understandable lack of support, I withdraw the nomination. Johntex\talk 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)