Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Texas Longhorn football team


 * 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 02:18, 9 September 2007.

2005 Texas Longhorn football team
Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, per previous nomination. Karanacs 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pending correction of a minor bit of overlinking, inconsistent formatting of dates in footnotes, WP:HYPHEN problems in List of accomplishments, and WP:DASH problems on page ranges and sports scores which Johntex knows about. Pls ping me when ready for a new look.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for working with me to improve the article. I fixed some of those issues and will be back soon to look for more. Best, Johntex\talk 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Striking my comments, I'm sorry I can't review further, Johntex, I've got a plane to catch. Everything looks good.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, as nominator. Per SandyGeorgia's pointers, I went back through and addressed formatting issues.  I also expanded some of the game summaries based upon an earlier request.  In case anyone is interested in checking the length, the readable prose of this article is still less than 50 kilobytes.  I look forward to new reviews. Johntex\talk 05:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Emphatically Support All issues well-addressed/discussed. As much as this pains an Aggie to say, this is one of the best sports-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Excellent work Johntex!!! (those comments remaining were leftover form the previous discussion and I wanted to make sure my responses were posted). — BQZip01 —  talk 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose by — BQZip01 —  talk

Below are excerpts from the previous review. I still Oppose, for now, but I will be deleting vast sections of this review that have been addressed (Hopefully Raul won't delete my comments again) and crossing off all those that were not addressed at the time of deletion. I also expect to have my mind changed in the near future...

General Problems
 * Make sure ALL full dates comply with WP:DATE (problems primarily in the references)
 * ✅ - I have gone through to see that all the dates are formatted correctly. Since there are so many references, there were lots to check.  I will make a second pass later to double-check. Johntex\talk 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ❌ Still were a few problems last I checked (ref #198 is one of them) — BQZip01 —  talk 04:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Before the season
 * "At the start of the 2005 season, the Longhorns were one of the most victorious programs in college football history as measured by number of wins (third at 787) and by winning percentage (fourth at 71%)." The prose doesn't flow well with the parenthesis. I'm not saying this isn't done IAW WP:MOS, but it doesn't seem to be "brilliant" prose. The fact that they are 3rd or 4th seems irrelevant as are the actual metrics. 71% and 787 wins mean NOTHING when there is no context. Is #1 71.3%? Is #6 40%? These facts have no basis for comparison making them awkward metrics for success.
 * Reply: The fact that they are 3rd and 4th is completely relevant. The point is to show that they were one of the top 3 or 4 teams by these two different metrics.  If I left out the percentages and the number of wins then the reader would naturally wonder "what percentage does it take to be 4th?" or "How many wins do they have?".  I could certainly list how many percentage points and wins they were off the #1 team, but I think that would be veering too much into information about other teams.  The reference is provided if the reader wishes to learn more. Johntex\talk 07:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kinda my point. If they want to know more, they can read the links. 3rd and 4th aren't needed, as are the figures. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I am understanding. Are you suggesting we say simply, "At the start of the 2005 season, the Longhorns were one of the most victorious programs in college football history as measured by number of wins and by winning percentage."?  I guess I could live with that, although I like the original version better because it is more informative.  I guess we could say "...one of the four most victorious..."?  That might be a good compromise between smooth and informative. - Johntex\talk 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohio State
 * "This meeting was the first match-up between two programs that rank among the oldest and best known teams in college football." Other programs that are old and well known have also met. Please rephrase.
 * ✅ - Johntex\talk 17:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually looks even worse. All that seemed to be needed was clarification that this wasn't the first matchup between any two powerhouse programs, but "between these two powerhouse..." Additionally, if you really want to go with this, please rephrase and tweak this and since "most storied" is a quote (???), it should be annotated accordingly — BQZip01 —  talk 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma
 * "The game typically has conference or even national significance." The games between the two always have conference implications because they are in the same conference.
 * Reply - Yes, but Baylor and Kansas play in the same conference and the outcome of that game rarely decides who is going to win the conference. The same is true of Baylor and Oklahoma State or Oklahoma State and Kansas, etc.  The paragraph goes on to explain how often Texas would have won the south division of the conference had they not lost to O-who. Johntex\talk 19:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just think it could be rephrased to better indicate what you just stated. How about something with "implications on the conference title" or something like that? — BQZip01 —  talk 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed it to "The game frequently has implications for the conference and national championship races." The paragraph already explains how the game relates to the conference championship race (with references).  At the end of the paragraph, I added "One of these two teams appeared in four of nine BCS national championship games from 1989–2007.[92]"  How's that look to you? Johntex\talk 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * *"Texas won They ended up winning the game by 33 points,[92] tying the biggest margin of victory for the Longhorns (a 40–7 victory in 1941) (his historical reference is not needed; should you choose to keep it, replace the with commas) in the history of the rivalry."
 * ✅ - Johntex\talk 19:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh...where? — BQZip01 —  talk 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I acted on the second part of your comment (removing the parentheses) and failed to act on the first part. The first part should be fixed now. I think the historical reference is useful to help keep UT's accomplishment in perspective.  Despite the significant things this team accomplished, getting the largest point-spread in the Red River Shootout is not one of them.  OU still holds that record.  Johntex\talk 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess so. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Colorado
 * *"Vince Young had perhaps ("perhaps" he didn't?) the best statistical performance of his career...rushing and 3 rushing TD's." "TDs doesn't need an apostrophe and I still think "TD" is too informal for encyclopedic prose. If it is used in a quote, no problem, but as-is is too informal.
 * ✅ - removed the word. - Johntex\talk 16:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * TDs doesn't need an apostrophe and I think it is too informal and this will remain open unless addressed, but I will not oppose solely on this. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - changed "TD's" --> "touchdowns". Johntex\talk 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * good! — BQZip01 —  talk 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support WOW Kmarinas86 06:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.