Talk:2005 Texas Longhorns football team/Archive 2

GA Candidacy
The article is too long per Good Article criteria. I suggest putting it up for peer review. GreenJoe 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We decided to let it remain listed, it will be reviewed further.--DorisHノート 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great, since GA criteria do not fail articles that are long. Also, the article has had multiple peer reviews.  This is discussed above but for convenience, a link is here.  Nearly everything in those reviews has been addressed.  The sole exception being that there is one request to expand some of the game summaries, which I am doing, but I felt it should not hold up a nomination for GA. Johntex\talk 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the following comments from the WP:GAC page to this page, since the thread was getting a bit long, and these comments are more appropriate for the talk page than the GA candidates' page. Dr. Cash 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article seems unusably long, consider breaking it up per WP:SUMMARY.IvoShandor 08:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I have considered it and I may do so after the GA review.  There is no hard limit on article size, and Wikipedia certainly has longer articles, so reviewing this for GA is completely appropriate. Johntex\talk 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The readable prose of the article is around 76kb, against the guideline of 32 - 50kb in WP:SIZE, which is supposedly part of the Manual of Style which Good Articles should not 'violate' (see criteria 1c). 4u1e 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. - GA requirement 1c says only that the article should not "...seriously violate the standards in Wikipedia Manual of style..." Given the dozens and dozens of guidelines the article conforms to, I would not consider it a "serious violation".
 * ...but if you think it is a serious violation then may I suggest someone could review |this version. The shorter version is what the article looked like before Peer Review caused it to grow in size.
 * If the shorter version passes I'll use it as the Main article for a Summary Style type expansion with sub-articles. Johntex\talk 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be precise, your article is 143Kb and it's really tired waiting it to be uploaded. What about a 88Kb-article? Will it violate WP guideline?  A  W  16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note: The WP guideline is to do with the amount of readable prose - i.e. just the words, not the total size of the article. It excludes references, images, tables (I think!) etc. This is the 76kb figure I gave above. The article in its previous 86kb total size version has only around 36kb of readable prose, so does not violate the guidelines.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4u1e (talk • contribs) 04:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not worried about the amount of kb in the article, but the article just reads too long. It seems to me like the notes on individual games (game notes) is the primary culprit here, which could be better summarized or moved to child articles about the game. Do we really need a full play-by-play about every regular season game in the main article about the team? Also, are details like, "The game was played in Austin, Texas with a temperature at kickoff of 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius) which is also the average temperature in Austin for the month of September. The skies were partly cloudy with a southeast wind blowing 18 mph (29 km/hour) and 52% humidity." Are such minute details of one game really all that important to an article about the entire season? Dr. Cash 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dr. Cash, thank you for looking over the article and for stating your concerns. The article did not originally have all the play-by-play, but then there was a request for it in the peer review process.  So, I added it all in.
 * I will go ahead and re-write the article in Summary Style with sub articles. That is a fair amount of work, but I think I can do it within a few days.
 * As to the temperature that day - one man's treasure is another man's trivia, I guess. I put that in for several reasons. One is that many readers think of football as a cold weather sport and they may be surprised to learn what the early season is like in Texas.  Another is just to add a little variety and ambiance.  The football season is about more than just the plays and score on the field, in my opinion.  I think we should be including things like injurites and player suspensions and the like.  The Louisiana-Layfayette game was a very uneven contest, as it was supposed to be.  Therefore, I put in some off-the field notes like the throw-back uniforms, the temperature, and the Hurrican Katrina donations.  I think they are all relevant to grounding the season in terms of wider events.
 * Let me trim it down, and we'll see what you think then. Please keep it on the seven day hold, if you will. Johntex\talk 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a note, I was just commenting that it was long and that you should consider breaking it up, I didn't insist upon it and it was something I thought you would want to know. I don't know why the reviewer told you to write an individual article about the game. I certainly would have made no such assertion, though I am sure the reviewer has his or her reasons. IvoShandor 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Update, As suggested above, and as recommended by WP:SUMMARY, I have begun splitting out portions of this article into seperate articles. Therefore, we now have 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game.  Unfortunately, it has been nominated for deletion, so I will need to see how that discussion goes before I can finish the job of re-writing this in the manner of WP:SUMMARY. Johntex\talk 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update, I've been following the AfD debate. Most of the "delete" opinions were registered when the article was first listed, and before anyone had spoken up for why the article should be kept.  The first 8 votes (including the nominator) were 4 delete and 4 keep.  Once I posted the explanation, there have been 2 delete, 11 keep, and one merge (which could be considered effectively a keep since this parent article is lengthy).
 * In my reading of the comments, some people to be happy to have an article on a football game if it is well written and well references. Some others agree with keeping the Texas vs. Ohio State article but seem to be expressing some reservation that any football game would qualify for its own article.
 * Looking at the current version of this main article, the two longest sections after are the Oklahoma game and the Texas A&M game. These are the two big rivals of The University of Texas.  The Oklahoma game was especially a milestone since (a) it was the 100th Red River Rivalry and (b) it got the "monkey off Mack Brown's back".  The A&M game clinched the Big 12 South for Texas.  Based on this, I think that either of these two games would be likely to survive if they were brought to AfD.
 * Therefore, I am going to split these two games off into their own articles. I think that will bring this article into the range suggested by WP:SIZE. Johntex\talk 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Size issue addressed
Update - the Ohio State and Oklahoma games have now been split off into their own articles per WP:SUMMARY. The 2006 Rose Bowl already had its own article. 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game was taken to AfD but it passed its AfD with a result of "Keep". Therefore, it looks like the info in those 3 articles can remain outside this main article, allowing this one to decresse in size.

According to WP:SIZE, when determining the size of the article, one takes out things like references and templates. When this is done, the article is now less than 60kb. That is below the threshold recommended for splitting up articles, so size should no longer be a hold-up for the GA nomination. Johntex\talk 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevancy questions re "Best team ever"
I'm not sure why an entire paragraph is devoted to ESPN's consideration of USC as one of the best teams ever and then the mocking postgame taunts by Texas fans. Mentioning that some pundits considered USC to be one of the best teams ever would be fine, but dwelling on it and then including the "postgame chants of Texas fans" reads more like something from a sports message board trash talk site than an encyclopedia article about Texas' season.

Ronnymexico 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Disney company and its subsidiaries (including ESPN and ABC) were huge promotors of the USC Trojans during the season. Their announcers said on more than one occasion that USC was the "best team ever" and that no other team had a realistic chance to beat them.  They also talked continuously about how USC was going to "three-peat" (meaning win 3 national championships in a row) even though the first of these so-called championship was not a BCS championship at all.  It was a major element to the media coverage of the season. Johntex\talk 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't think what you're saying is all that relevant to Texas 2005. Certainly USC being credited with a "national championship" based on the AP poll rather than the BCS in 2003 has nothing to do with Texas' season in 2005 and is more of an issue for LSU fans I would think. I definitely feel the sentence about Texas fans chanting "best team ever" is virtually meaningless and irrelevant to this article in general, fans chant plenty of things and I don't see why derisive cheers directed to USC are particularly noteworthy here. For the record, I'm not a USC fan or attempting to push a USC agenda by any stretch of the imagination, I guess I just don't see why that section, and the fan chant in particular, is noteworthy here apart from pointing out that many pundits ranked USC as one of the best teams ever prior to the game expected them to win. Ronnymexico 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't say that it is one of the 3 most important things about the season, but I do think it is relevant and interesting.
 * The question of USC in 2003 is not just a question for LSU fans. Texas fans listened all year to how great USC was supposed to be.  There is plenty more that could be said about the supposed "east-coast/west-coast media bias" that some would say works against teams from the less populated center of the country.  Naturally, that whole discussion is not for this article.
 * Regarding this chant: In my experience, it is fairly unusual for college football fans to begin chanting something like this in unison.  They tend to either stick to the standard chants for their particular team (E.g. "Texas - Fight"), or possible a generic "bull-shit" chant if they think the referee blew a call or something.  For the fans to spontaneously come up with a chant like this is unusual enough that the print media commented on it. Johntex\talk 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe USC in 2003 isn't just relevant to LSU fans, but I still struggle to see how it relates to Texas 2005 other than that Texas fans found such laudatory references to USC annoying and unwarranted. Just to clarify my position, it seems to me that your reasoning as to why this is notable is that Texas fans found the extensive media coverage of USC and ignoring of Texas to be annoying prior to the game (and consequently found the outcome more gratifying in light of the media's fawning over USC and relative lack of respect for Texas). I'm not disputing that many fans may have felt that way, I guess I just don't see fan reaction to USC media coverage as relevant to an article about the Longhorns' season. On the other hand, claims from Vince Young or Mack Brown explaining that media fawning over USC helped motivate or inspire the actual team itself would seem more relevant to me.
 * As far as the chant goes, it's true that the media commented on it, but only in the context of a very short blog-type entry listing the multiple postgame chants by Texas fans. There's no discussion of its uniqueness and I'd maintain that it's simply an instance of the local media saturating eager local fans with extended coverage of Texas' dramatic victory and its aftermath rather than an indication that that chant was particularly unusual or unique. Anyway, just wanted to clarify my position here. I was reading the article and that portion struck me as odd, that's all. Ronnymexico 18:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for commenting on it. We have several people looking over the article right now, I think, so I am going to step back and see if anyone else wants to join in discussing this topic. Johntex\talk 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Now that the size issue is out of the way, and as no-one else seems to want to review it!, I'll start reviewing:

In reverse order:
 * Images: FAIL . Slightly tentative, but I can't see how the fair use rationale for Image:BCS_national_championship_trophy_and_Bevo.JPG is valid: The image is not discussed in the article that I can see, and the rationale depends on the image being used "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". I've asked for a fair use review on it and will go with whatever the outcome of that is. Otherwise a good selection of images, which by way of advice, could be improved even further by working on the captions for some of them, but that's not part of the fail. 4u1e 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to PASS. Discussion of the image has been added to the article, as required by the license. 4u1e 10:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looks like that got removed somewhere along the way. I'm glad it is fixed now. Johntex\talk 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stability: PASS No issues. 4u1e 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutrality: PASS Seems neutral. The only question mark I've got is that there doesn't appear to be anything negative in the article, which makes me suspicious, although it was obviously a very successful season. However, assuming good faith like a good Wikipedian, I'm not going to fail it on my suspicions, which I don't know enough about the topic to investigate. 4u1e 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Breadth:
 * 3a) Addresses the major aspects of the topic. PASS Huge amount of detail so I guess this is a pass, but one question occurred: What about tactics? I can't see anything (again, it may be a lack of knowledge of the topic) and I would have thought that it was an important element. 4u1e 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3b) Stays focussed on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail FAIL PASS (ed. 4u1e 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)) You're not going to like this one. The readable prose is currently 66kb, which is still over the 50kb guideline length in the MoS. I think there's too much detail and I think the best place to cut is the very detailed, almost play by play, game summaries, probably by about half their current length. Whether or not the detail removed should then be put into daughter articles, I couldn't say. I found that section very tough going to read, which supports the reasoning behind the length guidelines. There are other cuts as well, I think too much time is spent on the throwback jerseys, for example. Sorry, you've clearly put a lot of effort into the article, but for me at least, it was undigestible in its current form. 4u1e 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, now shorter and more digestible. Thanks. 4u1e 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Factually accurate and verifiable. PASS Life is short and I'm not going to pretend that I've checked all 167 references. Those that I have looked at seem OK, it would be nice if there was more print copy material, but I guess it's a bit soon for that. I still think that you are seriously over-footnoting, per my earlier comments in peer review and to the detriment of the article, but I can't find anything that says I can fail you for that! ;-) 4u1e 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well written. minor FAIL . PASS (ed. 4u1e 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)) Well structured, but some minor clarity and style points to pick up:
 * - Several instances of the term 'powerhouse'. That sounds informal to me. Is it a formal term? If not it should be replaced.
 * Now fixed. 4u1e 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - I'm not clear what the 'Orange and White' scrimmage is, and the wikilink on scrimmage didn't help. Can the meaning of this be made clearer?
 * Now fixed. 4u1e 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - What's a 'road game'? Is it what I would call an 'away game' (i.e. a game played at the opposition's ground)? If road game is the normal US term for that then fine, leave it as it is; if not, perhaps some explanation or a link needed?
 * Normal American term, so not grounds for a fail. 4u1e 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - Personal bugbear: If it's the 'second ever' game, it's the 'second' game. Ever adds nothing to the sentence and can be removed. Yeah, I know, I'm being petty :(
 * Now fixed. I removed one other similar occurence. Sorry! 4u1e 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - Games - Louisiana Lafayettes: 'The extra point attempt ... was no good'. Is 'no good' the formal term for it? If so, leave it, if not, put the formal term in (I'd use 'missed' personally, but I'm not a native user of American English!
 * Now fixed. 4u1e 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - What does 'storied' mean, in this context? It would be clearer, and probably better style for an encyclopaedia, to use something like 'successful', 'historic', or anyway, something more descriptive.
 * Now fixed. 4u1e 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - Challenge of going to the moon.... current wording implies that what Kennedy said was that the difficulty of going to the moon was like the difficulty of playing Texas. Probably better to use a direct quote to avoid confusion.
 * Now fixed. 4u1e 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * - 2006 Rosebowl vs USC 'Young is the only from outside the Big Ten or Pac 10' What does this mean, is there a bit missing?4u1e 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. 4u1e 10:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew. Hope that's useful. Images and writing are pretty quick fixes. The length, I'm guessing, you will want to discuss. I will put on hold for now. I'll check back here if you want to comment. In the meantime, if you want revenge, why not go and review Brabham BT19 (Yup, that's my selfish reason for reviewing this article. Sorry!) 4u1e 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello 4u1e, thanks very much for reviewing the article. It looks like the main concern is with the image(s).  I think these are all discussed appropriately in the article, but I will take a fresh look at all the images, especially the one you specifically mention.   Of course, we have included several free images also where they were available.
 * Concerning negative things from the season - I did look for things to say on that point. There were no huge negatives during the season, as far as I am aware.  No players were suspended or arrested.  No coaches were fired.  There were barely even any injuries, but I did include the ones I found.  I will take one more look at this question, also. Johntex\talk 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, edit clash! Still reviewing, but thanks for the rapid feedback. Cheers. 4u1e 17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I did not realize you were still reviewing.
 * You are right, I don't like the feedback to trim the article. :-(  But that is not your fault.  I don't WP:OWN the article so mine is not the only opinion that matters.
 * Techincally, as you can see from the version in my sandbox the readable prose is 59kb. You may have forgotten to remove the included list, perhaps?  Regardless of the exact size, what matters is how it reads.  If you are having trouble making your way through it then that is not desirable.
 * It is a bit frustrating though because that information was added specifically because earlier reviewers thought that more information was needed. Originally I did not have such detailed information.  I'll work on it again.
 * Are there some games that look alright to you and others that look like they should be trimmed? Johntex\talk 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take your word on the length: I took the old fashioned route of cutting out the refs, pictures and tables and pasting into notepad, but I guess notepad may still be bulking it out a little. My feel, and it is only that, and I know very little about American football, is that the game summaries should be no more than 3-4 paragraphs long, varying up or down depending on the importance of the game. Content should probably focus on the effect on the season, rather than the detailed content of the game. 4u1e 17:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew. OK, I reduced the game summaries dramatically, taking more than 25kb off the over-all length of the article.  Please let me know what you think.  Johntex\talk 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to more thoughts on the above items. Johntex\talk 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to the issues raised about the writing:
 * 1) The term 'powerhouse'. - I would say that this word is somewhat informal, but also frequently used. I believe it is used by the source indicated, but I can double check that.  I think that some reasonable use of terms like this is acceptable to keep the article from being overly dry.  Before changing this - I'd like to hear if any third-parties have an opinion if they are reading this.
 * Powerhouse does seem a little POV and may go against WP:PRESTIGE. I'm sure this could be rephrased. For instance, in the section about Ohio State, you could mention that they were national champs in 2001 or something else to indicate how they are a powerhouse.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a "peacock term" or an overly-complimentary phrase. I use it here in regards to both Ohio State and UT, so it is not like I am singling out UT for the use of the term.  I have now put "Powerhouse" in quotes because it is a direct quote from the Associated Press article linked as a source.   If this is still a cause for concern now that it is in quotes I could directly name the AP as the source of the quote.  We can even take it out completely if we must. Johntex\talk 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that it's a peacock term, although it may be, I'm just not too clear what it really means. I mean, I get that it's good, but does it mean that they're one of the very top teams, or just that they're good, or that they produce a lot of professional players, or what? Something more specific would be good. 4u1e 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I clarified that the term "powerhouse" comes from having multiple national titles and one of the best win/loss records in college football. Johntex\talk 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not clear what the 'Orange and White' scrimmage is - It means the intra-team scrimmage. It is called Orange and White becasue those are the UT colors.  In a normal game, the team is either wearing their Orange uniforms for a home game or their White uniforms for an away game.  In the 'Orange and White' scrimmage, the 'Orange' team is playing the 'White' team.  I will clarify this in the article.
 * I added text to the article to clarify this and there is also a longer explanation in the footnote. Johntex\talk 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. 4u1e 10:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What's a 'road game'? Is it what I would call an 'away game'? - Yes, they mean the same thing.  I think they are interchangable terms in college football.  I will investigate this further.
 * I googled "away game"+"college football" and "road game"+"college football". The terms seem to be used interchangeably.  "road game" seems to actually be a bit more common.  I did not see anything that indicates one term is more formal than the other.  I sugest we treat them as synonyms with either being acceptable in the article. Johntex\talk 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. A suggestion though: If 'away game' would make sense to both British and American readers (where 'road game' would not), would it be better to use it anyway because it would make the article as accessible as possible? Just a thought. 4u1e 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Johntex\talk 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a couple more left, but if it's a normal American term it's not grounds for a fail. Change the others if you want, but you're OK as far as I'm concerned. 4u1e 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Personal bugbear: If it's the 'second ever' game, it's the 'second' game. Ever adds nothing to the sentence and can be removed.
 * Fixed. Johntex\talk 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 4u1e 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Games - Louisiana Lafayettes: 'The extra point attempt ... was no good'. Is 'no good' the formal term for it? If so, leave it, if not, put the formal term in (I'd use 'missed' personally, but I'm not a native user of American English! - I think this is very common usage in the sport. I would like to see if any third parties chime in on this one.
 * I agree with Johntex. No good is the phrase used most when a field goal is missed. This nomenclature should maybe be added to the field goal (football) article where it can be wikilinked.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As Nmajdan suggested, I wikilinked this term to field goal (football). Johntex\talk 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. 4u1e 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What does 'storied' mean, in this context? It would be clearer, and probably better style for an encyclopaedia, to use something like 'successful', 'historic', or anyway, something more descriptive. - I think that 'storied' basically means both "successful" and "historic".  I think it is a quote from the sources cited.  I will review again.
 * I put this word in quotes since it is used by the two sources cited. I can change this further if necesary. Johntex\talk 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not so much that it's a peacock term or slang, it's just that it's not clear what it means. My personal view is that it's better to be specific about what is meant. 4u1e 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I took this term out. Johntex\talk 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. 4u1e 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Challenge of going to the moon.... current wording implies that what Kennedy said was that the difficulty of going to the moon was like the difficulty of playing Texas.
 * That is exactly what it is supposed to be saying. Kennedy gave his famous "going to the moon speech" at Rice University and he compared the challenge of going to moon with the challenge of Rice playing Texas.  The quote is "...But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?  We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too...."  I hesitate to put the full quote into the article because of length concerns.  I added WikiSource box in the External Links section to the text of the speech.  I also expanded the footnote.  Is that sufficient? Johntex\talk 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggested using 'Kennedy alluded to the rivalry with Rice in a 1962 speech on America's space programme: "But why, some say, the moon? ... And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain. Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? ... We choose to go to the moon ... and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." That's not too long, and I think gets the point across without leaving you open to suggestions of interpreting the quote, which I don't read quite the same way as you. I don't see 'Rice playing Texas is as hard as going to the Moon', which the current words could be read as, I see 'Rice playing Texas is a hard challenge, like going to the moon, and we do hard challenges because they are hard'. Anyway, you don't have to use that particular selection of words, but I would suggest using a quote of some kind, because you don't have a source to say what Kennedy meant by it. Cheers. 4u1e 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, how about:
 * The rivalry was mentioned by President John F. Kennedy in a 1962 speech on America's space programme: "But why, some say, the moon? ... And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain. Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? ... We choose to go to the moon ... and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." ?  Johntex\talk 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. 4u1e 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 2006 Rosebowl vs USC 'Young is the only from outside the Big Ten or Pac 10' What does this mean, is there a bit missing?
 * Yes, the word "player" was missing. I have fixed it. The Pac 10 and Big Ten are conferences within college football.  USC is in the Pac10.  Texas is in the Big12.  It used to be the Rose Bowl always pitted the Pac10 champion agains the Big Ten champion, but that is not necesarily the case these days due to the BCS.  Johntex\talk 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. 4u1e 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the Neutrality of the article: you've already rated this a PASS but I looked into it anyway. Here are two things for consideration:
 * I added a paragraph about ongoing controversy over Greg Davis. This is sort of an ongoing controversy that actually quieted down (temporarily) during 2005 since the season was so successful.
 * There was also one play in the 2006 Rose Bowl that caused some controversy. It is already discussed in the 2006 Rose Bowl article.  It was in the second quarter when Vince Young's knee was probably down and the officials did not catch it. However, even if it had been caught, UT would still have had the ball with a first down inside the USC 15.  I think most people would say that they would be likely (though by no means guaranteed) to have scored anyway.  ABC said they got only 3 letters complaining about the fact that the reply system/reviewers did not reverse this play.  If anyone thinks it is important we can certainly include this information here in the main article. Johntex\talk 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Image captions - I tweaked these a little. Does anyone have any suggestions to make them even better?  Johntex\talk 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are my comments on the captions: 1) Can you please add a note to the UT Tower image saying what the "normal" configuration is? I'm curious on this myself; 2) Add further explanation to the MackBrown website banner, something like "The Texas Football website trumpets the win with this addition to the top of the website.". Thats all I have, I don't have any other issues with the captions personally.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Nmajdan: 1) Basically the Tower is usually lit with white lights but it gets lit in different configurations for different celebrations or curcumstances. The orange tower with a "1" formed by lit windows is used only for NCAA national championships.  I  wikilinked to the section on the UT tower article where the lighting is explained and I also added a footnote to an article on all the lighting configurations.  Does that look OK?  2) Done. Johntex\talk 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remembering that this isn't part of the GA Review as such, my two penn'orth on captions: 'The Texas offense lined up in the 'I' formation' doesn't make me want to read on. Can it be linked in some way to the article: is the formation an unusual one, or one they typically use, or did it form part of a particularly interesting play, something like that? 4u1e 09:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for elaborating. The short answer is that this fromation is not terribly special. It is a commonly used formation in American football.  I have lots of phtoos of the team, and this one is one of the clearest ones, so I uploaded it.  Linking to the I formation is just to provide more information to the reader.


 * The longer answer is that there is something a little unusual about this. UT did not run this formation that often in 2005.  They tended to run plays from the shotgun formation which means the quarterback stood a few hards behind the "center" (the guy who starts play by "snapping" the ball)  The ball is then tossed to the quarterback through the legs of the center.  In the "I formation" the quarterback stands "under center" (right behind the center) and the center hands the ball (again through his legs) directly to the quarterback instead of tossing it.
 * The "I formation" is traditionally used by teams who will "run the ball" a lot by handing off the ball to their running backs (who are lined up in the photo behind the quarterback). With two running backs there, they have more options for running the ball in terms of which running back runs which direction, and which one gets the ball.
 * For UT, their best "running back" was arguably their "quarterback" so they did not run this formation that often.  They tended to use a formation called zone read.  The zone read is a variant of the "shotgun".  In the zone read formation, the quarterback and one running back line up side by side, a few steps behind the center.  The ball is snapped to the quarterback.  The quarterback and the running back cross paths with each one heading towards a different side of the field.  As they cross paths, the quarterback looks at how the defense is starting to react.  If the defense seems to be stronger in the direction the quarterback is heading, the quarterback will give the ball to the running back.  If the defesne seems to be stronger in the other direction, the quarterback will keep the ball himself.  I guess we need an article on zone read since we don't seem to have one.


 * Since you also asked about team tactics, I might be able to make some sort of connection to the formations reguarly used by the team. The sourcing on this could be  difficult though.  Teams don't talk that much about their tactics besides saying general platitudes about how diverse their plays will be.  I will look into this and see what I can do. Johntex\talk 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: It is sometimes amazing what one can see when one takes a fresh look.  I just realized/remembered that this photo shows UT about to score on Colorado.  You can see the end zone barely visible at the bottom of the screen.  The "I formation" is often used in "short yardage" situations like this.  I updated the caption.  Please let me know what you think. Johntex\talk 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just the kind of thing I meant. Good job. 4u1e 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello 4u1e, I have attempted to address all the points raised in your initial GA review. Please let me know if any of these areas still need work and/or if you have any additional concerns. Thanks again, Johntex\talk 23:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, after this thorough GA review, how far away is it from FA quality?↔NMajdan &bull;talk 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. Right you're just a whisker away from GA - I think you need to give a quote for the Kennedy-Rice thing: it's to avoid disagreements over interpretation of what was said. I've made a suggestion above, but obviously it's up to you how you want to handle it.
 * Re: NMajdan's point. I'd say what you need to work on for FA is the 'brilliant prose' aspect, making the words really shine and achieving really elegant, concise and interesting prose to draw the reader in. It's a tricky one to achieve, and I don't think I've ever really done it, but you could try getting any good copyeditors you know involved (or try pinging the League of Copyeditors). There are some tips at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a. 4u1e 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding FA - I have noticed that there are just a couple of references missing. Not about anything controversial, but I think they need to be fixed before FA.  They probably just got minced by some mistaken copy and pasting.  Assuming this makes GA, I will fix them before trying for FA. Johntex\talk 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew! Job done. I'll pass as GA (I didn't want to mention it before, but I think this is the first article I've actually passed, most people don't respond to the points raised!) 4u1e 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Blank refs
Refs 119, 120, and 122 are blank. Just thought I'd notfiy since they're repeated refs it would take forever to find them. Quadzilla99 21:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed them. Thanks for pointing them out. Johntex\talk 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Name of offense
Minor point, but Texas has never run a spread option offense. In 2005, Texas largely ran a three-WR single-back shotgun spread attack. The zone read is merely a play, not an offense (and this play was used far less often in 2005 than many seem to think). The offense itself is not option-based. (In 2006, Texas hardly ran the zone read play at all. We mostly ran a zone play that looks like the zone read to most fans, but is in fact a zone "give" or zone handoff play. The play has no "read" component and is blocked differently from the zone read.)

Anyway, the name of the offense needs to be changed. Specifically, "option" needs to be removed. I suppose it can be as general as "spread" or as specific as "three-WR single-back shotgun spread," though I'd lean toward the general, since other (even non-spread) formations were used from time to time. ~ João Do Rio 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for contributing to the article. Johntex\talk 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)