Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1924 Rose Bowl/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC).

1924 Rose Bowl

 * Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It received a peer review from WWB Too and an extensive copyedit from Baffle gab1978. It was listed as a good article back in February, and I have been working on it since. This is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic. This is also my first time at FAC.

A short background: The 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated.

Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments—focusing on citation formatting and sources at the moment only.
 * Footnote 1: normal practice is that for newspapers that don't include their locations in their titles that the location is provided.
 * The OCLC doesn't match up. The one provided is for a newspaper in Providence, Rhode Island, not the newspaper in San Diego.
 * Location added and OCLC corrected.


 * Footnote 2 is apparently using "96 Years" as a location, yet that isn't a location reference in the linked webpage. Also, the website appears to be named "College Football at Sports-Reference.com", not what it is credited as.
 * Changed to "College Football at Sports-Reference.com", removed 96 years part.


 * Footnote 4: the Detroit Free Press doesn't currently include "The" in its title. Apparently it has never used the article on its masthead.
 * Well, this is from the edition that the article cited is in, and it uses "The Detroit Free Press" for its masthead, so I'm going to refrain from changing it for now.


 * Footnote 10: International News Service is a newswire agency; it should be included, without the abbreviation, in agency instead of author. This goes for the sources that credit the Associated Press (footnotes 13, 15 & 19). Also, footnote 10 should include a location.
 * Changed author stuff for refs 10, 13, 15, and 19 to agency parameter. Also added location to ref 10.


 * Footnote 11: like the Detroit Free Press, this paper also doesn't include "The" in its title. Also, the location should be included. Ditto footnote 24.
 * Fixed both.


 * Footnote 12: the publisher is linked here, but it's not the first mention of that publisher. If it's going to be linked, it should on the first mention.
 * Fixed. Sorry about this one, when I first added the footnotes, current ref 12 was the first occurrence. I forgot to fix this after it changed.


 * Footnote 16: the link to Images of America redirects to the publisher, and that name should be included in the series parameter and not the title.
 * Switched Images of America to series parameter.


 * Footnote 19: can you verify if the title of the paper at that time was The Gazette? It appears that the print edition (linked from the OCLC) never used the city in its name, but the electronic edition (linked from the ISSN) did. At the worst, you have conflicting identification numbers in your citation.
 * Corrected. It was The Gazette at the time. I messed up inputting the footnote. But it's fixed now, and Montreal is now added as the location.


 * Footnotes 20 & 25: these should include PDF to indicate the format, as was done with footnote 14. Not all web browser can or will display the PDF icon with the links.
 * Added PDF parameter.


 * Footnote 21: I would omit the at information; the cited section is right up top on the cited link.
 * Removed

Turning to the specific sources used:
 * All of the newspaper sources are good.
 * The Sports-Reference citations, I will assume are ok. I will defer to others if necessary on the quality and reputation of the website.
 * Just for clarification for anyone else doing source checks: Per WikiProject College football/Reliable sources, College Football at Sports-Reference.com is "an incomplete but useful source" (and a reliable one, per its listing on the page).

All in all the sources are fine if the formatting glitches are cleared up.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Footnote 16 is a book from a reputable publisher.
 * The remainder are from various college- or Rose Bowl-related websites that also pass muster. It would be better to directly cite the book that is excerpted by the website in footnote 26, if possible.
 * I have addressed all concerns above, save the Detroit Free Press issue, which might need further discussion. Thanks for the source and ref formatting check (although, just for the record, you forgot to include the book by John Charles Hibner [Ref 17] in the overview part above). Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 19:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose  - I was excited to review this one because we haven't had a good bowl game article come through here in a while, and I have fond memories of reading strong articles in this category in my early days as an FAC reviewer. Unfortunately, I found too many problems early in the article to ignore.
 * In the infobox, note A 1 is causing Washington's record to not fully appear. I don't know if anyone else is having the same issue, but it is a problem for me.
 * I don't know how to fix this. It's displaying fine for me.


 * Records in the infobox should have en dashes instead of hyphens.
 * Fixed.


 * Bold links are discouraged by the Manual of Style. For the link in the intro, it will need to be moved to later in the first paragraph.
 * Moved the link to the end of the paragraph.


 * "which had first been played in 1902 but was replaced until 1916." As far as I know, it wasn't replaced by any other game; it just wasn't held during those years.
 * I changed the sentence, and tried to explain it more.


 * En dash in "two-yard" should be a simple hyphen instead. A couple of other stray dashes need similar fixes in that paragraph.
 * Changed the en-dashes to hyphens for all similar cases.


 * "before attempting a game-winning field goal. The field goal missed...". Try not to begin a sentence with something that appears in the conclusion of the prior sentence. Here you can use "The kick" as a substitute.
 * Changed to "The kick".


 * "For his performance in the game, Navy quarterback Ira McKee was named the game's most valuable player." The double use of "game" is a prose redundancy, and I can't see any need to have two of them. It should be easy to chop one.
 * Removed the latter occurrence in the sentence.


 * The "team named desire" nickname should be explained somewhere, preferably in the body of the article. I just looked down there and saw nothing indicating why Navy was called that. I can imagine non-college football fans feeling completely lost right about now.
 * I tried to give a short explanation of the nickname down in the aftermath section.


 * "with the Huskies winning three of the games." This is known as a noun plus -ing sentence structure, and is something that should be used infrequently in good prose. You could try the semi-colon plus "the Huskies won three of the games" as a fix.
 * Changed to "times; the Huskies won three of the games"


 * Looking ahead to Washington: I see "Rose bowl", which is improper capitalization.
 * Fixed the capitalization. I searched the page, and that was the only case of "Rose bowl" occurring.

I was surprised to find that the article was copy-edited before being brought to FAC. The lead didn't feel polished to me, and my impression is that the rest of the article needs another copy-edit. I just don't think that FA criterion 1a is met right now. I do hope that these issues are fixed and that the rest of the article is worked on because I'd like to see it succeed. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to address the concerns you had above. I'm going to look back through the article and try to make additional copy-edits. I'm debating on whether or not to relist this at WP:GOCE/REQ, since the last time I listed it there it took a few months for someone to finally get to it. If you find more issues, I'll be happy to fix them. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't relist this at the guild. If you want this to pass FAC, it will probably take too long for an interested editor to finish work, and you don't know if the copy-editing will be up to par. If you know a talented writer, I'd recommend asking them directly for copy-editing help. If no one else comments in the next couple of days, I'll put more comments up, but I don't want to find a bunch of issues at that time. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Navy: En dash needed in "Army-Navy Game".
 * Fixed.
 * Statistical summary: One word too many in "but missed the his only field goal attempt."
 * Removed the "the".
 * Aftermath: Period needed at the end of the photo caption.
 * Added punctuation.
 * I still don't see any punctuation there. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note 1: Another en dash is needed for the record. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for looking through again. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments—As Awardgive mentions above, I reviewed this article earlier in the year, and I've been asked me to look it over again. I believe the article is carefully written and does an exemplary job of writing in detail about an issue for which sources are limited due to reasons of era, and it has improved since my last read. That said, I do have a number of recommendations and questions which should be addressed before I think this is ready, and I should add that my FAC experience is relatively limited, so I'll ultimately defer to others on whether this one should pass. For the record, I hope it does!


 * Introduction
 * Is a semi-colon the proper punctuation to place after "Washington Huskies" in the first sentence? I would typically think to use a comma here.
 * Changed to a comma.


 * Would it make sense to say, upon first reference to the stadium, "Rose Bowl stadium" to reduce the likelihood of confusion between the event and the building?
 * Added the word stadium after first mention.


 * I'd suggest commas around "nicknamed the 'team named desire'", as it's a subordinate clause.
 * Commas added.


 * Should most valuable player be capitalized here? It is capitalized in Statistical summary below. Perhaps this is a generic mention of the type of recognition, and the one further into the article is a specific reference to the award. I don't know what's best here, but figured it was worth flagging.
 * Capitalized.


 * Team_selection#Navy
 * "Navy were selected..." sounds like British English; shouldn't this be "Navy was selected..."?
 * Changed to "was".


 * I think "...were eligible to be selected." could simply be "were eligible." considering the word "selected" was already used in this sentence.
 * Shortened.


 * Team_selection#Washington


 * "Washington were selected..." again seems like British English, and should be "Washington was selected..."
 * Changed to "was".


 * Pre-game buildup
 * The sentence about how a Navy fleet was called to service the day before the game seems to me like it might work a bit better as a clause separated by semi-colon from the previous sentence. This would join the cause-and-effect that the two sentences produce, and would solve the small problem that the first sentence alone doesn't explain why the schools' ticket-selling led to lower attendance.
 * Combined with a semicolon.


 * Game_summary#First_half


 * Change "under 100–yards" to "under 100 yards"; no hyphen is needed, and anyway this is an en-dash.
 * Removed dash.


 * In fact, throughout this section, every construction describing the number of yards in a play uses an en-dash, though it should be a hyphen. Note, of course, this does not apply to the score by the end of the half, which should be an en-dash as it currently is. Also, "23–yards" should not include a hyphen, either.
 * Corrected all cases I saw.


 * Game_summary#Second_half


 * Same issue with en-dashes where hyphens should be is found here.
 * Fixed all hyphen issues I saw.


 * Statistical_summary


 * No en-dash or hyphen should appear in "175–yards", and "12–yard" should be a hyphen, not en-dash.
 * Fixed both.

I'd be happy to look at this again after these suggestions have been addressed. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've addressed all of your concerns above. I'll be happy to fix anything else you point out. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, but I read through your changes and compared with the live article, and all of my concerns are now addressed. Great work. I would support this article for FA status as I believe it meets all requirements. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This nom has remained open for six weeks without approaching consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.