Wikipedia:Peer review/Super Bowl XLII/archive1

Super Bowl XLII


This peer review discussion has been closed. Nominated for GA status a bit too soon. I'm hopeful this PR can help to get it to GA and maybe even FA status. Buc (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall quite detailed and readable, but has some issues with references (needs more) and POV language. Specific comments: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph of the Lead seems way too detailed on the specifics of the plays - this is supposed to be a summary of the whole article (see WP:LEAD).
 * POV language in the Lead (needs a reference and perhaps quotes, or toned down): Then came perhaps the most enduring play of the game... (says who?) and completed an ugly pass
 * Host selection process section: Surely more can be said about selecting Glendale than that it has a warmer and drier climate than Washington DC?
 * New England Patriots section - does not identify team as AFC or NFC, has only two refs for five paragraphs. Refs are needed for all statistics and all extraordinary statements such as billed as one of the greatest teams in NFL history.
 * New York Giants section - one ref for four paragraphs. Awkward grammar such as Strahan and Toomer were the only Giants to play in the last Super Bowl the Giants played in, Super Bowl XXXV.
 * Is there a model article (GA or FA) to follow for Super Bowls? The list of TV broadcasters seems a bit much to me and could perhaps be its own subarticle.
 * I would add subsections (for the quarters?) to the Game summary section
 * The television commercials also seem a bit too detailed - another summary article.
 * Most of the references are good and give title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed for internet refs, but several need details - current numbers 11, 62 and 71 are just external links as refs (not even a title), 37, 38, 75 - 77 are just titles.
 * Bottom line - a very detailed article, but it needs more references, less POV language, to use WP:Summary style, and a good copyedit.