Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team/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 16:41, 17 December 2007.

2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team
This article has been a GA for quite some time. A couple months ago, I went through and added a lot refs that the article was lacking. This has had two peer reviews, but the PR process does not really work past a certain point. So, I'm putting this up for FA to see what else needs to be done, if anything, to get this to FA. I have tried to follow the feedback given here first.NMajdan &bull;talk 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support — A very good article with excellent citations. I've got just a few things that jumped out at me:
 * In the individual game subsections, would it be possible to use the team name rather than the nickname in the linescores?
 * Every other yearly article I've seen does it this way. We already use the university name as the section header so why use it twice?↔NMajdan &bull;talk
 * My thought was that new/less-familiar readers would understand the name of the school easier than the nickname of the team. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any more pictures that could be used? Ideally, I think each game subsection should have at least one picture, and it might be nice to have a few more scattered around.
 * In an ideal world, getting a picture for every section would be great. But its hard, especially now that a year has passed since the events took place. I'll look around but I'm pretty sure I've got all the images I can off of Flickr.↔NMajdan &bull;talk
 * Yeah, I know how tough that can be. No big deal. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In those individual game subsections, it'd probably be a good idea to stack the pictures on top of or below the linescores. Right now, the text for some of the game sections is squeezed between the linescore and the picture and doesn't show up well on smaller-resolution screens. In particular, the 2007 Fiesta Bowl section seems a bit squeezed. It looks great on a cinema-style screen, but on a low-resolution screen, it looks a bit crowded.
 * I've moved the image in the Fiesta Bowl section below the linescore.↔NMajdan &bull;talk
 * Looks good to me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some text in the coaching staff section would be good, just as an explanation of who these guys are, what their history is, and any major events that effected them before/during/after the season. Forex, did any leave for new jobs after the season? Did they assume new responsibilities? Did they miss any games? Were any new in 2006 — Patton says one year of experience, but is that one year going into 2006, or one year after 2006?
 * ✅ I'll work on this. ↔NMajdan &bull;talk
 * Some color might be nice in the statistics infoboxes. They seem a bit gray, and a red/white color scheme, if done correctly, could look really nice.
 * Eh, I'm typically against using team-specific colors too liberally like that. I don't even know what I would change. If more reviewers feel the same, then maybe I'll consider it.↔NMajdan &bull;talk
 * I think the main thing I was thinking of with this suggestion was back in 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, where I had two infoboxes with the same headings but for different teams. There, it made sense to use team colors in order to help differentiate. Here, I guess, you don't have that problem. JKBrooks85 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these are deal-breakers, and none are really in-depth, but they're things that just came to mind after a read-through of the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose — See below.
 * This isn't encyclopedic: "The previous year's team did not quite reach to the expectations that head coach Bob Stoops has set for his teams."
 * ✅↔NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * "This season saw the Sooners re-emerge to the forefront of college football." Who says so?
 * ✅ Removed.
 * Do these really belong? If so they need cites: "Some of 2006 signees will make an impact in coming years but several were given the chance of making an immediate impact on the 2006 season. Signees from 2005's number one recruiting class made even more of an impact this year."
 * ✅ Fixed. Maybe.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * I think you need citations for the win/loss box.
 * Can this not be covered by the numerous references in the Game Notes section?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * If you think that references in the games notes cover all the information in box fine. If they do not you need to add sources. Check and let me know if they cover everything.
 * Yes, I know for a fact there is at least one source in every game summary that gives the final score.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * The tense is wrong in this sentence: "Of the 72 players listed on the latest roster, only nine of them are scholarship seniors".
 * ✅ Reworded. Better?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * You need to go through the entire article and fix the tense. This is last season so it should be in the past tense.
 * Nonencyclopedic: "While Stoops decided to stay in Norman, the Oklahoma coaching staff did get a bit of a shuffle."
 * It's a transitional sentences. Is it really that bad?↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * Yes, a bit of a shuffle is no good.
 * Reworded.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * The game notes sections need a lot of work. Citations are needed for all the opinions and claims made. I went through the first one adding fact tags.
 * From just a quick glance at the citations I noticed a number of access dates missing.
 * ✅ I found three and fixed.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk
 * I added fact tags from the beginning of the article until the game notes section

I am going to oppose for now because I think you have a lot of work left to do still. If you feel that you have adequately addressed all of these issues drop me a note and I will reevaluate. Also, have all the suggestions on the talk page been addressed? KnightLago (talk)
 * I addressed some issues. Will try to work on others.↔<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, keep working on it. KnightLago (talk) 21:16, 10 December 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.