Talk:1984 Independence Bowl/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Lead
 * Don't link the bold title
 * Done.


 * Far too long per WP:LEAD
 * Trimmed.


 * I will give a fuller review of the lead once you trim it down.


 * Team selection
 * "The United States Air Force Academy Falcons began the 1984 college football season with a new head coach, Fisher DeBerry, who replaced the successful Ken Hatfield, who had gone 10–2 during 1983, including a win in the 1983 Independence Bowl." Two "who clauses" in the same sentence makes it difficult to read.
 * Rewritten.


 * "In the first two games of his Air Force career, DeBerry's Falcons got off to an excellent start." Get is a poor English verb anyway - just see its huge list of definitions, but "get off to" and "start" mean the same thing. I would suggest a slight re-wording.
 * Rewritten.


 * Pregame buildup
 * "the game received as much or more coverage" Seems vague and slighly unencyclopedic.
 * Unfortunately, that's what the citation says.
 * No worries. Can't be helped. Peanut4 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Game summary
 * "41,100 tickets were sold for the game, but attendance was somewhat less, as many seats were empty." It's not the best idea to start sentences with numbers.
 * Rewritten.


 * "Aided by an offsides penalty against Virginia Tech," Is this right? Offsides doesn't seem to be to me.
 * Rewritten and wikilinked.


 * "Weiss completed an unusual—for Air Force—pass that gave the Falcons another first down and drove Air Force inside Tech territory." Why was it unusual? If as explained above, I'm not sure how it is totally relevant to repeat again. Surely they must pass some of the time?
 * Rewritten. The wishbone offense doesn't involve much passing, which is why it was unusual. But it's not really relevant to the game, and folks interested in that can simply click on the wikilink.
 * That's fine. If it means the same as already explained higher in the article, I think your re-wording makes it better. Peanut4 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Postgame
 * "The loss also lowered Virginia Tech's overall bowl record to 0–5." Though there's nothing wrong with this, I would suggest it could be re-worded for better effect, to something like "The loss was also Virginia Tech's fifth bowl defeat" or even something better to demonstrate they've never won.
 * Rewritten.


 * "The Hokies would not win a bowl game until their next bowl appearance, in the 1986 Peach Bowl." Again strictly true, but the emphasis doesn't sound right. I would suggest "The Hokies won their next bowl appearance ..."
 * Rewritten.


 * "Air Force would appear in a bowl the following year, against Texas." Similar to above but for slightly different reasons. "Would" isn't necessary and I would change to "Air Force appeared ..."
 * Rewritten.

I'll put on hold for the time being. Peanut4 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know what else I need to fix. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Review of lead
 * "The game kicked off under comfortable 74 °F (23 °C) temperatures and the wind was from the southwest at approximately 15 miles per hour (24 km/h)." I don't think this is necessary for the lead. It's too precise info that doesn't really draw the leader in.
 * Removed, replaced with general weather.


 * "Tech's offense was stifled by two Air Force interceptions and two lost fumbles, allowing Air Force to earn the victory." I'm not sure this is necessary either especially after saying Air Force gained 13 unanswered points. I'd reword to "...Air Force's offense broke free for 13 unanswered points to earn a 23–7 victory." Peanut4 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The game kicked off under comfortable temperatures and moderate." Moderate what? I'm guessing wind but I don't want to correct it and be wrong. Peanut4 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was wind; my fault. I hate when I correct a mistake and make another. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Meets pretty much all the GA criteria. Well done.

Just a few thoughts to help you with any future expansion;
 * I still think the lead is on the long side, though I would leave it as it is while the rest of the article expands. And it's only marginal anyway.
 * The article could do with some images
 * Just a quick thought on this, and the other Bowl articles you work on - how about having a section to add the teams / rosters?

Anyway, well done. It's now a GA article. Peanut4 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)