Talk:2004 Emerald Bowl/GA1

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * General
 * Images are good. One FU image with a rationale, the rest PD
 * Alt text is good.
 * Spotcheck of references show no concerns with close paraphrasing, references support statements
 * Ref 11 is weird though. I'm not sure why the title is italicized. Perhaps because it uses cite journal instead of cite news?  Also, publisher should probably be "CNN/SI" or "CNN/Sports Illustrated"


 * Lead
 * "...but the Midshipmen scored three unanswered touchdowns to bring the score to 21–7." - One of my pet peeves about sports journalism. Since New Mexico did score more points afterward, it is not correct to say Navy had three "unanswered" touchdowns.  I'd just say they scored three touchdowns at that point.
 * Removed "unanswered". I never interpreted this to mean they never scored again, but you're right, it's too vague.


 * Build-up - Navy
 * "... kicker Geoff Blumenfeld had made three of ten field goal attempts during the season, including three misses at distances shorter than 30 yards." - Reads awkwardly since you switch from making field goals to missing. I might suggest:  "...missed seven of ten field goal attempts during the season, including three at distances shorter than 30 yards."  Or perhaps "...made only three of ten field goal attempts during the season; three of his misses were at distances shorter than 30 yards."
 * Fixed. I went with the first option. I'm always hesitant about adding things like "only" because I think it's an example of a subtle NPOV issue that comes up often.


 * Build-up - New Mexico
 * "The team's primary receiving threat, Hank Baskett, led the team with..." - Repetitive use of "team" in close succession. ("The team" is used several times in this paragraph overall) I think you can just start with "Primary receiving threat..."
 * Fixed, I think. There is quite a bit of repetition here, and that's my fault. The thing is, there are only a few options when referring to a team: the pronoun, the team name, or the school name. I'm not a fan of using the school name, since the University of Wherever didn't do X or Y; rather, the football team representing it did. So that leaves me with basically two options.
 * Tell me about it. It's the same two options we always have when discussing a person... name or "he/him/she/her".


 * Game Summary
 * "...the game was watched by over four million households, approximately 65 percent more viewers than the previous year's game." - Repetitive use of "game". You could probably end with just "...than the previous year."
 * Fixed.
 * "9-yd" should be spelled out.
 * Fixed.
 * " running back Frank Divis executed a halfback option pass trick play to Polanco for a 17 yards, the team's biggest gain of the first quarter." - missing word. Perhaps "...for a gain of 17 yards, the team's biggest of the first quarter"?
 * Fixed. This was actually an added "a" here, rather than a missing word.


 * Postgame effects
 * Should the section title be "Post-game effects"?
 * Good point. That's how it's listed in WP:CFBSTYLE, but I remember being confused because most of the featured articles for games don't use the hyphen. Looking back on it now, I think the hyphen is necessary.
 * The post-game on New Mexico is thin compared to Navy's paragraph. You note Navy's 2005 bowl appearance, did New Mexico have one? I'm not big on college football, so I don't know if a bowl-game result counts in their overall conference or NCAA rank.  If it did, it might help to note that New Mexico finshed in nth place in their conference.
 * New Mexico didn't play in a bowl game in 2005. They weren't ranked overall before or after the game, but I did add that they finished second in their conference (although they would have finished second pretty much no matter what happened, because the Utah Utes were way ahead and the BYU Cougars were well behind.)


 * Overall
 * No major concerns, just some minor prose suggestions. My CFL-wired brain was kind of blown away by the idea of a quarterback leading in passing, rushing and receiving yards.  If that happened in Canada, the team would probably have lost by 100 points! ;)  Anyway, placing on hold for now.  Cheers! Resolute 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that it is a very odd occurrence for a quarterback to do that at any form of gridiron football, and probably hasn't happened since the early days of the sport. I'd make a bigger deal out of it, but it would definitely be original research at that point, since nobody really noticed that at the time. I also made a few other tweaks to the article, nothing major. Thanks a ton for your review. –Runfellow (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks great! I am no passing the article.  Cheers! Resolute 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)