Talk:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose meets GA standards, but below are notes that can improve the writing.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Referenced mostly to national sports network ESPN and online content of local newspapers.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Compared with other college-bowl-game Featured Articles like 2009 International Bowl and 2009 Orange Bowl for 'major aspects'. This article covers all the same major topics, including Team selection, Pre-game, Game summary, Statistics, and Aftermath.
 * See notes below regarding 'focused'.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See note below regarding attendance.
 * 1) It is stable: No edit wars, etc.:
 * 2) 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 Non-free image with fair use rationale.
 * 3 Commons-hosted, Creative Commons Attribution or public domain images
 * 7 Locally-hosted, Creative Commons Attribution images
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Notes:
 * Please address the 2 disambiguations: Tim Brown and Brian Kelly.
 * Brian Kelly disambiguated, Tim Brown delinked as he doesn't currently have an article (there is a Tim Brown (American football), but that's not him) and is of questionable notability. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In "Team selection" - "...Rutgers, whose fans had a better traveling reputation,..." - which references is this from?
 * Added a new reference that more clearly establishes Rutgers' bowl traveling reputation. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3b Focused: I find the "Connecticut" and "South Carolina" sub-sections too detailed for an article on a bowl game.
 * For example: "Connecticut's next game was their home opener, versus No. 19 North Carolina (UNC). The Huskies led 10–0 through three quarters, but North Carolina came back to tie the game with 2:36 left. On the ensuing possession, UConn left tackle Dan Ryan was called for holding in the end zone, which by the rules resulted in a safety that gave UNC the lead. The Huskies attempted and recovered an onside kick, but were unable to get in field goal range before the clock expired. North Carolina won the game 12–10." - why is such detail (5 sentences) about the second game of their season relevant to this bowl game? The same goes for the details of other games: why is "In the third quarter, with the score 21–13 in favor of Connecticut, Louisville drove down the field and had a 1st-and-10 at the UConn 14-yard-line." important to this bowl game?
 * I trimmed the North Carolina and Louisville sections. I need to mention Jasper Howard's play in the Louisville game in order to explain why he was an important player before he was murdered.  I don't think at this point the team subsections are significantly longer than those in my previous featured article, 2009 International Bowl.  Let me know what you think. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, but it is not the length that is the problem, it is the inordinate level of detail, detail with no bearing on the bowl game. While that level of detail is expected in the sub-articles (eg. 2009 Connecticut Huskies football team) it should be summarized here. Consider the detail in UConn's game against WV:
 * "The Huskies continued on to the next game of the season, at West Virginia. In a back-and-forth game where the Huskies outgained the Mountaineers 501 yards to 387, Connecticut took a 24–21 lead with 3:50 left in the game on a 88–yard touchdown pass from quarterback Cody Endres to Marcus Easley. With 2:10 left, West Virginia running back Noel Devine broke free, running 62 yards down the right sideline for the game-winning touchdown. The final score was 28–24 in favor of West Virginia." → This can be summarized as follows: 'In their next game, against West Virginia, the Huskies outgained the Mountaineers 501 yards to 387 but ultimately lost after West Virginia responded to UConn's 88–yard touchdown pass with four minutes left in the game with a 62–yard touchdown run two minutes later.'
 * I shortened several of the remaining individual game lines; very few should be above two sentences now. The main exception is the UConn-Notre Dame game, which I feel is important to highlight a bit more since it was the biggest win in Connecticut football history, as noted by the head coach in the provided quote. –Grondemar 05:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Use something more factual in place of "With heavy hearts...", like 'they held a moment of silence' or 'wore helmet stickers in his memory'.
 * I removed the phrase; the team's reaction to the murder is described better in the Pregame buildup section. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the four seasons Steve Spurrier had been head coach of the Gamecocks the team had a record of 28–21,..." - name which 4 years.
 * Added "since 2005", with a wikilink to the 2005 South Carolina team. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the four seasons Steve Spurrier had been head coach of the Gamecocks the team had a record of 28–21,..." - name which 4 years.
 * Added "since 2005", with a wikilink to the 2005 South Carolina team. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed review; I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to fix before this article can be passed as a Good Article. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

-maclean (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes cont'd
 * In "South Carolina offense" - "In Wide receiver Alshon Jeffery was Garcia's favorite passing target..." - 'favorite' is more of an opinion. Unless he stated 'favorite' somewhere, I think 'most successful reciever' or 'most capable' would be more accurate.
 * The applicable quote in the source was "...true freshman Alshon Jeffery has caught 43 passes for 735 yards and six touchdowns, most coming in the final seven games. A huge target, with a knack for making acrobatic grabs, he’s become the go-to guy for erratic QB Stephen Garcia." I changed "favorite" to "most-frequent". –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4. In "Game summary", - "At least 30,000 of the fans in attendance were believed to be supporting South Carolina;[75]" - this estimation of fan support the Gamecocks had is referenced to a quote by the Gamecock coach on gamecocks.com. While the estimation is not unreasonable, I would prefer to see the "were believed" attributed in prose, like "Steve Spurrier believed at least...". Also, the same gamecocks.com reference says "More than 20,000 South Carolina fans...".
 * I change it to "Steve Spurrier estimated..." Also just to note, but GoGamecocks.com is actually a subsite of The State (newspaper), which according to its Wikipedia article is the largest-distribution newspaper in South Carolina. –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moore made a spectacular one-handed running catch, and found the end zone for the first touchdown of the day." -'spectacular' in unnecessary commentary. Opposed to the unspectacular one-handed running catches?
 * Removed. –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the "Game summary" subsections, there are some colloquialism that could be better replaced with something more factaul:
 * "found the end zone" → 'and ran xx yards to score the first touchdown of the day'
 * I changed "...running catch, and found the end zone..." to "...running catch into the end zone..." as Moore does indeed run into the end zone in the process of making the catch. You can see this if you watch the ESPN highlight clip linked in the External Links section. –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "...elected to go for it..." → 'declined to punt and attempted a quarterback sneak'
 * Changed to "...attempted to gain a first down..." –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Huskies attempted to make the Gamecocks pay for their misfortune." → 'The Huskies began their offensive drive in favourable position, on the Gamecocks' 32-yard line.'
 * Changed to "The Huskies began their next drive in favorable position due to the Gamecocks' turnover on downs." –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "South Carolina went for it..." → instead of punt South Carolina attempted xx
 * Changed to "Once again South Carolina attempted to gain enough yards on fourth down to earn another first down; this time they needed ten yards." –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The two teams traded punts for the remainder of the half, going into the locker rooms with Connecticut holding a 13–0 lead." → 'The two teams traded punts for until halftime as Connecticut held a 13–0 lead.' (fixes the tense shift also - traded, going, holding)
 * Changed to "The two teams traded punts until halftime; at the end of the first half Connecticut held a 13–0 lead." –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dixon found the end zone from ten yards out, giving Connecticut a 20–0 lead and effectively putting the game away ." - found the end zone → scored a touchdown, rushed into the end zone, etc.
 * Used "rushed into" as proposed. –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the new comments as well as the issue with the game summaries should be fixed now. Let me know if you have any further concerns. –Grondemar 05:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks. maclean (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)