Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Virginia Tech bowl games


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

The list was promoted 16:52, 20 March 2008.

Virginia Tech bowl games
This is the keystone article of an eventual (hopefully) Featured Topic about Virginia Tech bowl games. It's fairly long, but much of that is due to the amount of information that needed to be cited. As an aside, many of the individual-game articles linked from this page are start-class or worse. Only two (2008 Orange Bowl, 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl) are of featured status, but work is underway to improve them. Any comments about how I can improve this page are greatly appreciated. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments - an impressive start, just a little confused as to whether it's really a list or an article. I won't dwell on that though and give you my opinions as it stands right now. Something to be going on with. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Including inactive streaks, Virginia Tech is tied for eighth with Tennessee and Ohio State.[3]" a little jargony and a little trivial for me.
 * What's jargony about it — what would you suggest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKBrooks85 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should clarify - what's an "inactive streak"? And the "tied for eighth" is a just trivial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean now. It ties in to the previous line, where I talked about how Tech has the fourth-longest active streak of consecutive bowl games. If you count streaks that have ended, Tech's 15-game run is equal to historical fifteen-game streaks by Tennessee and Ohio State. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Smith participated in the 1984 Independence Bowl, while Vick quarterbacked the Hokies to their first national championship appearance during the 2000 Sugar Bowl, and followed that performance by leading the Hokies to the 2001 Gator Bowl before entering the 2001 NFL Draft and being selected by the Atlanta Falcons.[4]" Consider splitting this sentence in half - it's a bit of a mouthful.
 * Fixed.
 * "going 6–9 during " very American football oriented - a non expert would need this to be explained - perhaps just stick to "winning six" or similar.
 * I spelled out the first instance of this shorthand for regular-season results in the 1947 article. That way, anyone reading the section and unfamiliar with the shorthand will understand it later on (hopefully).
 * I'm not keen on your wikilinking of various to Walter Camp Coach of the Year and organizations to Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year - too much of an Easter egg if you get my drift.
 * Removed.
 * "a Bowl Championship Series game" what is the significance of this?
 * Wikilinked
 * "3–3–3 " I know what this means but non-experts won't. I think this could be a problem throughout really, there needs to be an elegant but explanatory way of describing the season record that's accessible to all.
 * See above.
 * "halftime" is normally hyphenated, isn't it?
 * Halftime may be regional (hyphenated outside of America, one word in America). I have never seen it hyphenated, though our own half-time article disagrees with me.  The NFL has it as one word 2120 times and hyphenated or two words 93 times. --B (talk) 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no big deal, my US English is improving all the time! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "the favored Bearcats managed to get their offense rolling", "were doomed to defeat" - journalistic, not encyclopaedic.
 * Rephrased
 * "didn't " - avoid contractions in featured content.
 * Removed
 * "frigid 36-degree " - use degrees Fahrenheit (and convert to celsisus) because where I live, 36 degrees is really hot.
 * Converted I had gotten the other temperature and wind references... just missed that one. Thanks.
 * I think, in general, the match synopses need to be copyedited from a neutral tone perspective. Right now they read a little too much like newspaper reports.
 * Well, I'm a newspaper writer in real life, and I don't think I can change my writing style overnight. If you can give me specific examples, I'd be happy to change what you suggest. Other than that, I'm really at a loss. It's simply how I write, particularly in regards to sports items.
 * That's perfectly understandable, I'd like to be a sports journalist one day... I'll keep dreaming. Okay, well I'll go through the rest of the article and highlight areas which concern me.
 * Thanks for the tips. I'll see what I can do to clear things up for you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad to have been of use.. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Great progress. I have a few comments.
 * Comment It might hurt to have a small chart at the beginning which details all the different bowls (by which I mean the types - Peach Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc, not the individual games) they've participated in, which would include things such as their win loss record in each. -- Scorpion0422 02:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd thought that as well, and I'll do just that — thanks for the suggestion. Where should I put it, though? My initial thought is directly below the top picture, but if you've got any preference, let me know. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay... I've dropped that table in there. It's stretched out the space between the lede and first section slightly, but unless there's another place where we could put it, I guess that's where it has to be. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but you should also include a column for wins as well. -- Scorpion0422 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the pre/post rankings of both teams if applicable. For example, 1995 Sugar Bowl doesn't include the rank of either team.
 * Done.
 * I do not like how Virginia Tech bowl games isn't in the first sentence per WP:LEAD.
 * I chose to emphasize the second part of WP:LEAD, which instructs editors to insert the boldface text as soon as logically appropriate. Yes, it's not in the first sentence, but I chose the soonest spot where it was logically appropriate to insert the name of the article. If you can think of a way to insert the full name of the article in the first sentence without completely wrecking the flow of the lede, please do so. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I could think of is:
 * This is the list of Virginia Tech bowl games since the creation of the football team in 1892. Virginia Tech has participated in 21 post-season bowl games including three Bowl Championship Series game appearances and one appearance in the national championship game. The Hokies have been invited to a bowl game every year since 1993, a 15-year streak that is surpassed only by Michigan (33 games), Florida State (26 games), and Florida (17 games) for active teams.  Including historical streaks, Virginia Tech is tied for eighth with Mississippi and Ohio State, who had bowl game streaks during the periods 1957-1971 and 1972-1986, respectively.
 * It might need prose cleanup though. Also, I think the related NCAA college football seasons articles needs to be wikilinked for each applicable bowl game.  i.e. For the 1995 Sugar Bowl game, in the article, it could be 1995 Sugar Bowl.  That gives the reader a link to the college football landscape of 1995, and a reference to the Sugar Bowl in general. But, 1947 Sun Bowl wouldn't have the wikilink for that college football season, because the article currently doesn't exist. Just a thought, what do you think?   P G  Pirate  13:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I advanced the boldface text. Thanks for the suggestion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the suggestion about linking the bowl and year separately, I'm concerned that it might be a little too much like an Easter Egg, as Rambling Man put it. I like the idea, but there's already links to the bowl games and seasons scattered throughout. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - looks great now, congrats.  P G Pirate  19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. I only have one suggestion, but it's a big one so I figured I'd support anyways and hope you take care of it eventually. The in-line citations are a little bit messy and inconsistent. For the most part they give proper attribution, but little things like a comma here, a period there, italics, capitlization, etc are inconsistent. Rather than scour the entire article for these minor fixes, I'd recommend using citation templates, since they do all the work for you. But, like I said, that's a pretty major undertaking, so I'll support anyways. Great list! Drewcifer (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-I started reading an introduction about the Virginia Tech football team, and suddenly it was about the Hokies. I assume it is a nickname for the team, but it is not clear. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry — that was an obvious thing that I should've caught. It's been fixed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drewcifer. I'll go through and standardize them as best I can. I'm a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to the citation templates ... I've never liked them, so if it means a little more work to make the page look better, I'll take up that burden. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Well written, well sourced. Meets all of the criteria. STORMTRACKER    94  Go Sox! 09:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.