Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Insight Bowl


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 10 January 2009.

2003 Insight Bowl

 * Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

Hello, everyone. This is another American college football article in a series, and it comes on the heels of a successful FAC for 2006 Gator Bowl. Thank you to everyone who commented on that one, and I hope you will provide feedback on this article as well. It's somewhat older than it's predecessors, 2000 Sugar Bowl and the aforementioned Gator Bowl article. As is the case with most of these articles, the lack of pictures is the most lacking element. The prose also reads somewhat differently from those other two articles, something I attribute to it being written before the other two. I've checked it with the dead links and DAB checkers, and appreciate any and all comments, positive or negative. Thanks for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Most of your authors are listed after the titles, but there is one that is listed first. Consistency?
 * Make sure all your newspaper/book titles are in italics (I noted current ref 32 (Tedford Has...) but There are many others.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've made those fixes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit I got all gooey and warm inside when I saw one of my photos had made its way into this article. I'll try to come back to is with a more neutral mind (before I go on a 2 week vacation). --Bobak (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I figured that I should comment early, because someone's going to be busy next week. There are a few more problems than the last one, and I've detailed some of them below.
 * Photos: Aaron Rodgers has a great photo on his page, though he is wearing a Packer jersey.
 * Thanks for pointing that out for me.


 * "Virginia Tech accumulated an 8–4 regular-season record that saw the Hokies lose four of their last six regular-season games." The "that saw" part isn't working for me.
 * Fixed.


 * Pacific 10 needs a hyphen.
 * Fixed.


 * Team selection: Semi-colon after "but after that game was required to invite Virginia due to its contract with the Atlantic Coast Conference". Also, required and chose clash in this sentence.
 * Fixed.


 * "behind previous year's champion Miami and Pittsburgh." Put "the" after behind.
 * Fixed.


 * "brother of star former Hokie Michael Vick." Change it to something like "brother of former Hokie star Michael Vick." Sounds like he's still a star; um, not so much.
 * Fixed.


 * Contraction that needs to be removed: "Things seemingly wouldn't be much easier for the Hokies the next week".
 * Reworded.


 * Needs a source: "the biggest win in school history" against Miami. It wasn't their largest margin of victory, and I question whether it was their most important win; didn't Michael Vick's teams have some big wins? Is this the highest-ranked team they've ever beaten? If so, it would be better to just say that. And add a hyphen for "39 game" winning streak.
 * I've added two citations to justify that remark. They're not specifically about that statement, but they do address it.


 * What makes Techsideline.com a reliable source? Is it a printed publication? It says that it has no affiliation with the university. I also question how much it backs up the claim that some fans were disappointed with Virginia Tech's berth in this game. I'm sure it's true, but it reads to me like one fan's opinion.
 * That particular entry was more in line with a blog post, but I've backed up the information with other cites. TechSideline is the oldest and best-established independent site covering Virginia Tech sports. It started as a fan-run operation, but transitioned into a business about a decade ago. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back when I can, but it may be a while due to a large review backlog.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 20:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what you've been able to provide so far. I can't wait to see what else you can find! JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "It was California's first winning season in several years". How many? Is "several" used because they were 6–6 after a bowl game one year?
 * Replaced with "since 1993". I also added wikilinks to the appropriate seasons.
 * Pregame buildup: "and had higher expectations in the Insight Bowl." Replace "in" with "than". The next sentence copies the last sentence in the previous section.
 * Fixed and removed.
 * "McArthur fractured a bone in his wrist and was unable to play." Which wrist?
 * Game summary: "Bank One Ballpark hosted the Insight Bowl from 2000-2005 with seating reconfigured from the standard used during baseball games." Change the date range to "from 2000 to 2005"; en dashes aren't even recommended.
 * Fixed.
 * "making it the 13th most-viewed bowl game and the fourth-highest rating of the 20 bowl games broadcast on ESPN that season." Check to see if "rating" should be "rated"; I'm not 100% either way.
 * Fixed. It should be fourth highest-rated, I think.
 * Can the post-quarter recaps be merged into the preceding paragraphs in each case? I don't think having a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs is optimal, especially because they can be combined so easily.
 * Fixed.
 * "Tech faced a second down and needed just two yards for a first down, but could not gain the required two yards on two attempts." To avoid a redundancy, change the second "two yards" to "yardage" or similar.
 * Fixed.
 * "As time expired in the first half, Warley's kick sailed wide." Left or right?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just removed the reference, since I wasn't sure.
 * Thank you so much for being such a reliable reviewer for these. You're quite proficient at nailing down things I missed, and it's really appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Third quarter: In a similar vein as the review below, I'm not sure "California seized the moment" is encyclopedic prose.
 * Removed. There also was another of those "unfortunately for"s nearby.


 * "Following the touchdown, Virginia Tech received the ball and performed its first three and out of the game." I think "performed" looks odd here.
 * Fixed.


 * Fourth quarter: "Rodgers recovered by the fumble by...". Try replacing the first "by" with "from".
 * Fixed.

I'm done here after these. The reviews below really helped, at least in the later sections.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the detailed review. One of those last suggestions reminded me to go through and clear out the past perfect verbs in a lot of places, and I think that has helped. :P JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to take a Weed Whacker to some of this prose. It definitely can be quite dense at times, but I really appreciate it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not too impressed with the prose. Consider getting a copy-editor to run through this. Some random samples:
 * "ended in a 52–49 victory for California. Cal and Virginia Tech combined for 101 points; only one bowl game in history, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored by the two teams in regulation." I think we can assume readers can do the math themselves. "Regulation" should probably be linked somewhere. Redundancies: "only one bowl game, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored in regulation".
 * I'd agree that most readers can do the math, but it's not really convenient if you're trying to get at the information quickly ... I do agree with you on the redundancy, however, and have removed it.
 * " partially recovered from its 14-point first-quarter deficit by scoring two touchdowns" I'm not getting the use of "partially" here.
 * Fixed. The partially doesn't make sense unless you know that Virginia Tech also scored a touchdown, thus keeping a lead. But that isn't revealed until the next sentence.
 * "With time running out, Cal began to drive for a game-winning score. The post-score Tech kickoff went out of bounds, giving the Bears possession at their 35-yard line." Seems like these two sentences ought to be switched.
 * Agreed. Fixed. Also removed a "game-winning" redundancy.
 * "after that game was required to invite Virginia due to its contract with the Atlantic Coast Conference; it chose " Wrong use of the semicolon. Not sure how a game can be "required to invite" nor how it can have a contract. "it chose" meaning the game chose?
 * Fixed. It's somewhat awkward to talk about the bowls' organizing committees without repeatedly using the full names of the bowls, but I think I've managed it. If you could double-check to make sure it's not too confusing, I'd appreciate it.
 * "The other option for the Hokies " I don't understand how this could be another option if they weren't invited.
 * Fixed. "Possibility" is a better word there, I think.
 * "third-place Oregon received a bid to the Sun Bowl instead of California, which was tied with Oregon for third place in the conference." Again, redundancies ("third place", "instead of California") can be eliminated: "Oregon, tied for third-place with California, received a bid to the Sun Bowl"
 * Fixed.
 * "Things seemingly wouldn't be much easier for Tech the next week" Encyclopedic, not journalistic, prose please. And what does "seemingly" mean here?
 * Heh. That's my job intruding on Wikipedia again. Fixed.
 * "biggest win in school history" What does "biggest" mean?
 * "Highest-profile", perhaps?
 * "including three losses in their last four games" Weren't we just told this?
 * Removed. I typically prefer to explicitly state things for the reader (as if you couldn't tell), but I'd agree with you that's a little too much.
 * " season that had begun with hopes of participation in " Bit awkward, especially with those three rapid-fire prepositions.
 * Changed to simple past tense.
 * "began the 2003 season after going 7–5 the previous season, culminating in a 30–7 victory" "began the 2003 season" adds nothing here (and only leads to awkward sentence structure) since the rest of the sentence is about the previous one, and in fact, the rest of the paragraph does not broach the 2003 season.
 * Fixed.
 * " in what was the season opener for both teams."
 * Fixed.
 * "game, which was played at home. The Bears outscored the visiting Southern Miss Golden" More redundancies. One will suffice: "which was played at home" or "visiting".
 * Fixed.
 * "but hadn't been able to earn the win" More contractions! Budding Journalist 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * I haven't had time to re-read the article yet, but I'm striking my oppose for now since I will be traveling for the next few days. Budding Journalist 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:InsightBowlLogo.png - The fair use rationale for "2003 Insight Bowl" is missing a specific "purpose of use". It simply says "For use on the Insight Bowl article and related articles". See this dispatch on non-free images for help writing purposes of use, particularly the section at the end. The fair use rationale also needs to indicate who owns the logo. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on this one. I've removed two other uses for that logo (they should've been using a different one) and replaced the boilerplate with the newer version that has been provided. I've also expressed that this is a historical logo no longer in active use by the Fiesta Bowl, which is the parent company/organization (as far as I can tell) of the Insight Bowl. Feel free to take a look and let me know if I'm missing anything else with that. I'm definitely not an expert on the intricacies of copyright law. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you! Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments  from
 * " But in that quarter, the Hokies clawed back into competition."
 * Removed.


 * "The Hokies then evened the score at 49–49 "
 * Removed.


 * "Big East champion Miami was awarded an automatic Bowl Championship Series game spot" "game spot"-->berth.
 * Fixed.


 * "while second-place Pittsburgh accepted a bid to the Continental Tire Bowl in Charlotte, North Carolina." "while"-->and, this is additive info.
 * Fixed.


 * "In its seventh game, however, Tech suffered its first loss. " False contrast, with "however", sounds like Tech lost in spite of its six previous wins, which in all likelihood had little tangible effect on its loss.
 * Fixed.


 * "third-ranked Tech lost 28–7 to the No. 23 Mountaineers" Add "the" before "third-ranked".
 * Fixed. I also changed Tech to "Hokies" in order to have agreement with the "the".


 * "Virginia Tech running back Kevin Jones drew media attention one day after Virginia Tech's selection for the Insight Bowl" Comma after this phrase.
 * Rewritten.


 * "The only first-team All-America player for the Hokies," That season, or all-time (although I have no doubt that it is the former).
 * Rewritten.


 * "successfully completed just 14 field goals in 29 attempts"-->converted just 14 field goals in 29 attempts
 * Rewritten.

Will return for the rest of the article tomorrow Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Audit throughout the article for cases in which comparative quantities are not written out the same way as dictated by MOSNUM (all numerals or all words). Some examples:
 * "Hall finished the regular season with 54 tackles and one interception."
 * "he returned 30 punts for 434 yards and two touchdowns."
 * "who accumulated 99 tackles—the most on the team—and two interceptions"
 * "despite only playing three games for the Bears"-->despite playing only three games for the Bears
 * Fixed.
 * Thanks. Can't wait to see what you turn up for the rest! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "On December 24, two days prior to the game" "prior to"-->before.
 * Fixed.


 * "making it the 13th most-viewed bowl game that season and the fourth highest-rated of the 20 bowl games broadcast on ESPN that season." Despite being a follower of college football, I don't quite understand what "fourth highest-rated" means. Was it the fourth game to be the highest-rated? I think the hyphen use is wrong here.
 * Fixed. I was referring to the television rating, and I've rewritten that sentence.


 * "After the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, California received the ball to begin the game."-->After the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, California chose to receive the ball to begin the game.
 * Fixed.


 * "Running back Adimchinobe Echemandu ran the ball twice for short gains each time, but Rodgers continued making long passes" Change "but" to "and", and "continued making"-->continued to make.
 * Fixed.


 * "During the post-touchdown kickoff, Virginia Tech's Mike Imoh fielded the ball and returned the kick 52 yards"-->Virginia Tech's Mike Imoh fielded the post-touchdown kickoff, returning the kick 52 yards.
 * Fixed.


 * "Though Tech quarterback" "Though"-->Although, we want a slightly more formal register here.
 * Fixed.


 * "capitalized on a two-yard touchdown run" "capitalized"-->scored, as I don't understand what there was to capitalize on.
 * Fixed.


 * " Unfortunately for the Bears" Your journalistic elements are showing through...
 * Fixed.


 * "California began its next drive at its 29-yard line following a short kickoff return" "following"-->after, this avoids the clumsy noun + -ing construction
 * Fixed.


 * "Owing to the limited time available, it seemed as if Tech would simply run out the clock and head into halftime with the lead. " Original research?
 * Removed. That was based on a series of comments the TV announcers made during the game. Since there's no cite, it's best to simply remove that sentence.


 * "It took California just 2:44 in game time to advance 88 yards for a touchdown" Let the stats speak for themselves.
 * Fixed.


 * "It took California just three plays to earn a touchdown from its 34-yard line."
 * Fixed.


 * "Tech was forced to punt after just three plays and four yards"-->Tech was forced to punt after running three plays for four yards
 * Fixed.


 * " In total, California ran 7:09 off the clock before Vincent Strang broke free for a 13-yard rush that resulted in a touchdown."
 * Fixed.


 * "kicking the ball four times for 159 total punting yards" Another one of those comparative quantities instances.
 * Fixed. I really don't like that rule.


 * "Echemandu had one rushing touchdown, while Rodgers earned two." "while"-->and.
 * Fixed.


 * " In total, Virginia Tech's offense broke or tied 14 school bowl records, either individually or as a team."
 * Fixed.


 * "He led all defensive players with 12 total tackles in the game."
 * Fixed.


 * "California's win brought it to a final record of 8–6,[31] while Virginia Tech's loss took it to a final record of 8–5." Don't like the use of "brought it" and "took it".
 * Fixed.


 * "Virginia Tech had five players selected: DeAngelo Hall and Kevin Jones were both taken in the first round, while Jake Grove was selected in the second, Ernest Wilford in the fourth, and Nathaniel Adibi in the fifth." "while"-->and.
 * Fixed.


 * The formatting of ref 73 is different from the rest. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That ref is the only book ref and it uses an automatic citation template. I believe someone else added it.
 * Thanks for all the suggestions! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - After the many revisions detailed above, it meets the standards set by other bowl game featured articles.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Another well written bowl article. All major issues have been addressed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see the author first in the citations, but since author is consistently placed after the title, I'll pass this anyway (although it greatly pains me to pass an article in which Cal Berkeley won the Big Game). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally write it that way Sandy, but this is an older article from before I settled on that style. Rather than trying to switch everything around, I just tried to make it internally consistent. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.