Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [1].

2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl[edit]

2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): –Grondemar 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third nomination of the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl article for featured article status. The previous nomination was archived essentially due to a lack of reviews. Since the last nomination I added a picture, File:UConn Lawrence Wilson.JPG, taken by myself and freely licensed, and made several copyedits throughout the article. I appreciate everyone's comments as I try to finally get this article over the FA hurdle. –Grondemar 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to self, because this has two previous archivals with little review, I'll let it run longer if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources have not changed since the closure of the last FAC on 24 January 2011. At that FAC, sources were approved by Ealdgyth, subject to a possible query on the reliability of http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/index.php (College Football Data Warehouse). This sources has been defended as reliable by WikiProject College football and I am prepared to accept that judgement. The article was subject to heavy spotchecking in its November 2010 FAC. I think it can be safely said that the article is properly and reliably sourced. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Brian. –Grondemar 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find the terminology confusingly inconsistent. At various points, "UConn", "Connecticut," "Huskies," and "Connecticut Huskies" are all used interchangeably (with the same variation for South Carolina. I would suggest picking one usage and sticking to it, unless there are reasons to deviate. Sir Nils (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Nils, speaking as someone who's written several of this type of article before and has tried that approach, using one form tends to create an immense amount of repetition that hurts readability even more than alternating forms does. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JKBrooks85 on this matter. All of the different names are introduced in the first sentence of the lead. Varying the names improves readability and is consistent with how previous college football FAs, as well as external sports articles, are written. –Grondemar 12:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should clarify. Obviously, across the sweep of the article, it's desirable to have some variation; however, what I found irksome is when a single sentence/pair of sentences uses a construction such as "Connecticut X then the Gamecocks Y." It's just an opinion, but I think that reads better as "Connecticut X then South Carolina Y." Certainly, I will bow to consensus. Sir Nils (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification, Sir Nils. I agree with you on that, and it's something I'll have to watch out for in my articles as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that point; I tried to make sure that when the teams are compared in a sentence it is as like-to-like, such as "Connecticut X, South Carolina Y" or "the Huskies and the Gamecocks". I'll take a look through the article and fix any issues I can find. If you find any I miss and either fix them or point them out here, I'll greatly appreciate it. –Grondemar 01:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through the entire article and fixed any issues with the juxtaposition of dissimilar team names that I could find. Let me know if I missed any. –Grondemar 13:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I've given most of the article a quick copyedit, so take a look and make sure I didn't make a change you disagree with. I'd advise trying to get someone unfamiliar with American football to take a look, just as you did with YellowMonkey in the first FAC.
    • I'll see what I can do. I miss having YellowMonkey around since he was always good with this. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find the official final statistics to get the exact time of kickoff? Most games are scheduled for even hours like 1 p.m., but then kick off at something like 1:05.
    • After a great deal of searching of newspaper and web archives, I finally found this information in a place I should probably have looked sooner: the bowl's own website. See [2]. Official kickoff time was 1:04 PM; I've integrated that into the article. –Grondemar 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any postseason coaching changes for the two teams?
  • Consider setting off that quote in the Aftermath section with a colored box. As it is, there's not much difference in how the quote displays its text from how the body copy is displayed.
  • The season summary sections are a bit long; I'd suggest splitting out the Howard stabbing into a subsection and transitioning into the games that followed by writing a sentence or two about how the team reacted.
  • Even though that might involve writing a bit more, there's room to cut the season summary by removing some of the information about how many of the games were won. That's information better suited for the season article. I tend to include information about season-turning games rather than individual performances. Forex, the North Carolina game is good, but you could end the Baylor summary with the score. The Cincinnati game also could be cut down. This is a tough thing to do, but rather than deleting the information entirely, consider copying it over to the season article.
  • By splitting out the Howard murder earlier and writing a transition, you can remove redundancies in the pregame buildup intro.
    • I believe I addressed all three of your above concerns. –Grondemar 18:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest moving the Courage Award into the aftermath section, since it came after the PapaJohns Bowl.
    • Actually this is a tough one, because the award was announced on December 21, prior to the PapaJohns.com Bowl, but wasn't presented until January 4, after the game. I placed it in the Pre-game buildup because I thought the award announcement was more important than the actual presentation, and that it would be confusing to try to split the information between the sections. –Grondemar 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussing the Notre Dame coaching situation, it isn't clear whether the situation was resolved before the PapaJohns Bowl or not.
    • It was resolved prior to the game per the source; I added the date Kelly was named head coach (December 11) to clarify. –Grondemar 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly suggest using simple past tense; "would go on" should be replaced by "did", and there are other, similar examples that can be replaced with simple past tense. I replaced many of them, but you may want to check for lingering items.
    • I believe this is fixed; please review. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch your pronouns when talking about teams and schools, "team" is an it, not a "they". It's a collective singular noun, so it takes a singular pronoun even though it refers to a group.
    • I believe this is fixed; please review. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there sponsorship renewal discussions before the 2010 game?
    • I expanded the information about the sponsorship renewal; hopefully this addresses your concern. –Grondemar 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is any information available on the game's economic impact?
    • The only source I've found is a single line on the bowl's website, which says the game had an economic impact of $18.4 million. I have no idea how they came up with that number, however. I'll add it to the article while clearly indicating that this financial number is the bowl's own claim. –Grondemar 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking into it further, it appears that there was a press release that further described where that number came from (apparently from the Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce), but unfortunately, it is a dead link and I haven't been able to find it archived anywhere. –Grondemar 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did ticket sales compare to expectations? What were the two schools required to sell?
  • How did the schools fare financially in the game? With fewer tickets sold, the schools typically are required to eat the cost of their ticket allotment; was anything written on this?
  • What was the halftime show? Who were the game officials? Did any celebrities/notable people perform the pregame coin toss?
    • Found the game officials in the bowl pdf linked above and added; still looking for the others. –Grondemar 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • After an extensive search I have been unable to find any reliable sources discussing the halftime show or pregame coin toss. From actually being at the game I can tell you that the halftime show consisted of the two team's marching bands, plus John Schnatter, the founder of Papa John's, driving his Camaro partially onto the field. I have pictures of the pregame coin toss that appear to show the referee posing for pictures with someone who looks like Schnatter, but the photo was taken from too far away to tell for sure. Either way, I can't find anything reliable that discusses either of these things, unfortunately. –Grondemar 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a logo available for use in the game infobox?
    • There is, File:PJcomBowl Logo.png; however, at the first FAC User:Jappalang requested that the non-free logo be replaced with one of the free images in the article. I selected File:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl 4th Down Measurement.JPG as it represented a pivotal moment in the game (although the picture would have been better if the PapaJohns.com Bowl had used normal chain poles that were orange and black instead of the white one with the game logo that blends in with the Gamecock offensive linemen directly behind it). I'm neutral on whether the game logo should be included in the article or not. –Grondemar 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. I've never used a picture in a game infobox, so it stood out for me, but since there's no standard, there's no reason not to. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The payout information needs to be cited, and if you could add a sentence next to that on bowl money distribution in the two conferences, that'd be a nice bonus.
    • Corrected and referenced in the infobox, and additional information added with reference to the first paragraph in the Team selection section. –Grondemar 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop me a line when/if you take action on these suggestions, and I'll give the article a more thorough copy edit. Keep up the good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed review! It will take me a couple of days to get through all of your feedback, so I politely request patience. :-) –Grondemar 04:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did take me a week to get back to you on your request for a review. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, except for the outside jargon review; let me know if you agree. –Grondemar 02:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions appear correct, everything looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. –Grondemar 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – The third time for this article, and it has received a good amount of work already during this FAC. I haven't read the whole article again, but here are a couple quick things from the season summaries:

  • Connecticut: There's an abbreviation for North Carolina, which as far as I can tell isn't used after it is defined. If it's not going to be used later, there's no reason to abbreviate it in the first place.
  • South Carolina: "After six games, the Gamecocks had a record for 5–1". "for" → "of". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking another look, Giants. Both issues should be fixed now. –Grondemar 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments:

  • Bowl payouts are given to the conference, rather than individual teams. I've changed the last sentence of the first paragraph of team selection to reflect this.
  • In the South Carolina season recap, you repeat "next game" as almost every sentence transition. Try to use varied wording there.
    • Good call, this should be corrected now. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a comment in the first section of Connecticut offense that needs to be addressed.
  • Watch for the "their own" construction; it's redundant in almost every situation, and you have a lot of them scattered throughout. I've removed them where I saw them, but you will want to check.
    • I went through the article and replaced all of the "their own"s. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check your pronoun agreement. I've seen a lot of sentences that include "South Carolina ... their". South Carolina and Connecticut are being used as collective nouns in these cases. Even though they're referring to teams of people, the team is singular, it takes an "its". When you say Huskies or Gamecocks, the opposite is true; you say the "Huskies had the ball on their 17-yard line." This is one of the places where British English and American English disagree.
    • I went through the article again and corrected the subject-verb agreement wherever I found they didn't match. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been told that alt text isn't required for FAC photos anymore, but I'd suggest its inclusion.
    • Before adding alt text to any further images I've been waiting for WP:ALT to stabilize into a consensus guideline; at this point I might have better luck waiting for Godot. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scoring summary at the conclusion of the game summary is nice. I'll be sure to copy it in my bowl game articles from here on.
    • I find that table makes for a very nice game summary. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the repeated wikilinks from about the game summary section onward to avoid overlinking. You may want to go through player names to unlink additional iterations.
    • I unlinked all duplication I could find; I left alone links to the same page where the linked text is different, generally because different football jargon is defined on the same page. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the aftermath section, it's not clear which UConn assistant coach filled which position. The "respectively" doesn't help me, I'm afraid.
    • I revised; hopefully it is clearer now. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have thought of including the 2011 season results, but because you have the text about Spurrier promising changes, it works nicely.
  • Including a sentence in the aftermath section about what happened with Howard's murder wouldn't be amiss, I think.
    • I'm not sure that's really relevant to the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. What happened basically is that the Connecticut state police arrested a couple of suspects, and a year later they reached a plea bargain to a lesser charge. I think this would work a lot better in the Jasper Howard article than in this article. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given the article another copy edit and changed some things. You'll want to look at the season summary in particular, and I think I deleted one of your repeated citations accidentally. The article's definitely coming along, and please write me a note when you're ready. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything looks good to me; I commented-out the unused reference. Thanks again for the thorough copyedit; if you could review again to see if I have addressed all of your concerns, I would appreciate it. –Grondemar 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. With those changes, I'm happy to support the article as meeting all requirements for FA status. You'll still want to get someone unfamiliar with American football to look it over, but I believe all major issues have been addressed through the two previous FACs and your responses to my comments above. Keep up the good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "which had 7–5 regular-season record highlighted " -> perhaps "also had a 7–5 regular-season, highlighted..."?
  • "-No. 4[Note 1] Mississippi and then-No. 15[Note 1] Clemson. " I think our readers could cope with one Note 1 at the end of the sentence.
    • In college football there are multiple organizations that rank the top 25 teams before, during, and following the season. They include the AP Poll, the Coaches' Poll, the Harris Poll, and the BCS Standings which is based in part on the Coaches' and Harris polls. In order to simplify the article and not provide multiple numbers every time I wanted to list a team's ranking, I settled on using the AP Poll as a default, and developed Note 1 to explain that the ranking immediately previous is from the AP Poll and no other poll. I like having the note directly next to the ranking, so that if the reader is confused about where the ranking came from they can find the answer quickly, but if you really feel the note should be moved to the end of the adjacent sentence I guess I could do that. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see where you're coming from, but in almost all the circumstances in this article where note 1 is used, it's real close to punctuation, with no room for confusion as to what it's referencing (in my opinion), so I would prefer to see the notes moved. But that is a preference, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did pregame become a real word? I would have thought pre-game was more correct, however, if USEng allow pregame, I can't argue I suppose...!
  • "tragic circumstances of the Huskies' season" surely the tragedy was specifically related to the death, not the overall season?
    • It does, but I didn't want to repeat "the murder" when I said it immediately above. Do you have a suggestion as to how this could be reworded? –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "tragic" is not required, I think perhaps our readers would get it without this word. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really like having "tragic" or "tragedy" there; the sources virtually universally describe the event as a tragedy, and the word helps add resonance to a very emotional event. How about "Pregame coverage focused on the tragedy that marked the Huskies' season..."? –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had effectively been decided" sounds a little POV to me.
    • I don't really see it as POV; more as a recognition that an American football team down thirteen points (a touchdown and two field goals, or two touchdowns) with less than 3:30 left is highly unlikely to make a comeback. A similar scenario is a soccer team down 3–0 in stoppage time scoring a consolation goal to make the score 3–1; despite the score it is extremely unlikely they'll be able to complete the comeback in so little time. This interpretation is also supported by the sources. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just wasn't keen on the fact the interpretation wasn't as stated in the sources, i.e. you put your spin on the situation. Perhaps I'm being too picky though. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ref 82 (the ESPN/AP recap) states, "Dixon's 10-yard touchdown with 13:12 left effectively put the game away." If Dixon's touchdown put the game away, then the South Carolina touchdown came after the game had been decided. I didn't add the ref to that sentence because it is in the lead and there is a similar sentence in the game summary that (now) has the reference. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my ignorance, but the infobox has 8–5 and 7–6 under the teams. Is that as a result of games between regular season and the bowl game?
  • What is SEC?
  • Two links to the St Petersburg Bowl, one to the general article, one to a specific year, potentially confusing.
    • I'm not sure how to resolve that... the problem is that if I put the years in front of the specific-year bowl games, they would be all over the place because bowl games are played in both December and January following the college football regular season. For instance, following the 2009 college football season, Rutgers went to the 2009 St. Petersburg Bowl, played in December 2009, while UConn went to the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl, played in January 2010. Both games are considered part of the 2009 season despite one being played in the calendar year 2010. It also leads to anomalies such as there being no 2009 PapaJohns.com Bowl: the 2008 bowl was played in December 2008, while the 2010 bowl was played in January 2010. If you have any ideas how to resolve please let me know. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "versus No. 19[Note 1] North Carolina. " again, no real reason to not put the note after the period. Same comment applies throughout.
  • "a historic rival " in BritEng this is "an historic rival", but perhaps USEng ignores that?
    • I think "an" does sound better here, so I changed it. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 12:26 a.m..." very specific for a "around"...
  • "he murder of Jasper Howard was the first homicide.." no need to repeat Jasper here.
  • "coming one week" no need for coming.
  • Non-expert warning, what does "late go-ahead score" mean?
    • It means a score late in the game that put the team (in this case the Huskies) in the lead. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Fighting Irish" I guess you mean Notre Dame but the non-experts amongst us won't understand that at all.
  • "with 1:10 left" do you mean 70 seconds? or 1m 10s? Not completely clear to me.
    • One minute ten seconds equals seventy seconds. Could you clarify your confusion? –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, badly phrased by me. I just thought there was a possibility that a non-expert would not quite get that without something like 1m 10s ... (I maybe underestimating our non-expert readers though.) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Syracuse[34] and South Florida at home. " Syracuse is specifically referenced but South Fl isn't. Why? And would still prefer to see these sort of references after the period.
    • This is a result of the compression of the season summary sections done above. The reference immediately after Syracuse is for the Syracuse game. The reference for the South Florida game is at the end of the paragraph, because it supports not only the latter part of that sentence but also the rest of the sentences in the paragraph. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AP, Coaches', and Harris polls" what's AP and can you link these?
  • "game-clinching touchdown; South Carolina lost 20–6" I know (as you can tell) not much about US football, but how do you define "game-clinching" if they won by 14 points?

That's me up to the "Pregame buildup" section. I'll pause to check these comments are useful, I know mostly they're down to my ignorance of the sport and presented in an attempt to ensure the article is accessible to all readers. Let me know if I should put up or shut up! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback; I do find it very helpful. I responded to all of your comments above, but did ask for clarification on a couple of them. If you could review and respond, I would greatly appreciate it. –Grondemar 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support Sorry I couldn't find more, very tightly written piece. How do you like WebCite? I've thought about doing that for 2009 World Series, but the prospect of going through for 100+ sources scares me.
      • I highly recommend using WebCite to archive web page links. It's easy to use and ties easily into the Cite templates. I've been trying to use it to archive every reference I add to Wikipedia. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Five losses by a total of fifteen points" Could you add a "just" in there to make clear that that's a low amount for non-football fans? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worth mentioning that this was the last "PapaJohns.com" Bowl, as it were? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's already there, in the last paragraph of the "Aftermath" section. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I meant noting that in the lead. Either way works though. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a suggestion, but have you considered {{Quote box}} instead of {{Quotation}} for Spurrier's bit in Aftermath? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you expand a bit on what "Economic impact" means? (the source doesn't make it clear, is it total tickets/TV/concessions/etc?) Staxringold talkcontribs 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish I could; unfortunately the only source I have for the number is the mention on the bowl website. There is a link to a press release apparently further explaining the figure in the bowl website, but unfortunately the link is dead and I couldn't find the contents in any of the Internet archives. –Grondemar 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (cont.)

  • "The two combined for 27 touchdowns and more than 2,100 rushing yards" probably worth ensuring us non-experts realise at this point you're talking about the whole season, not just this match.
  • " ranking 41st nationally in rushing offense and 46th in passing." (a) not sure where this is referenced (b) to a non-expert, neither of these sound impressive. Out of how many teams?
    • This is referenced by Ref 69, a couple of sentences later. There were 120 teams in Divison I FBS in 2010; this fact was added. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how ref 66 says experts thought Frazer needed a good game. It read, to me at least, that the one reference said the passing was far from impressive.
    • Fixed; that should have been reference 69, the College Football News game preview, versus the ESPN game preview. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 6 touchdowns" - previous section saying similar had "and eight touchdowns".
  • Wilson & Legion Field images are squashing text between them (which I thought was discouraged at MOS#Images)
    • What resolution are you using when looking at the page? I moved the Wilson pic for now to the Connecticut section as at a full 1920x1080, I couldn't reduce the resolution enough to avoid the problem and still have the picture useful where it was previously. –Grondemar 23:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zach Frazer hands off to Andre Dixon." not sure this needs a period.
    • Removed. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to be contradictory, but it's a complete sentence (apart from the missing period at the end). --RexxS (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " UConn also gained only one yard, punting the ball back to South Carolina." this could be read that the gain occurred after the punt. That's not what you mean, right?
  • "After a 2-yard" any reason for that not to be "two-yard"?
  • " Husky defense" a bit weird for me, I thought it was the Huskies defense.
    • Whether to use "Husky" or "Huskies" is generally awkward in American English, so I changed it to "UConn". –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " three-and-out " don't know what this means I'm afraid.
    • Linked at first reference. Basically, in American football, an offense has four plays to move the ball a minimum of ten yards. Generally teams do not make an offensive play if they haven't gone the ten yards by the fourth play, since if they went for it and failed to make the distance, they would turn the ball over to the other team at that spot. Instead, they elect to punt or kick the ball away to the other team, to increase the distance the other team would have to go to score. A "three-and-out" is when a team doesn't manage to go ten yards within their first three plays after getting the ball. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know at WP:FLC we pay a lot of attention in ensuring our lists/tables are accessible. I don't think the score summary table really is, but that may be because FAC isn't too fussed. We would avoid use of bold or italics to convey specific information (especially without a key), we'd use row and col scope parameters for screen readers... Is the Length col in yards? Is Time the time elapsed in the quarter? A couple of things that may not be clear to non-experts.
    • I'll need to edit the Scoring Summary template to fix this. This will take a few days minimum. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • After some sandbox work and much frustration, I revised the templates behind the scoring summary to include some explanatory links, changed Length to Yards, added a column for Plays (commonly mentioned for scoring drives along with the time of possession and yardage), and changed the second "Time" to "TOP", with a note that TOP stands for Time of Possession. I also removed all extraneous bolding and italicizing. I'm not sure what you mean by "scope parameters" for the table. If you could take a look and let me know if the revised table meets your expectations, I would appreciate it. –Grondemar 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you take a look at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables, there's guidance on how to mark up data tables to maximise their readability by screen readers. See this for details of how JAWS interacts with tables. Although the "Scoring summary" table is complex, it should be readable, although marking up the required column headers (e.g. Plays) with scope="col" would increase the chance that a screen reader would announce the header intended. The "Statistical comparison" table is completely missing markup for the row headers, and the column headers would benefit from defining their scope. If you don't feel confident with this, I'd be happy to do the markup, if requested. --RexxS (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took a shot at adding the scope parameters to the tables per the MOS. If you could take a look and fix anything I did wrong, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 12:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the "Statistical comparison" table, I've removed the hard-coded bolding of the cells you marked as row headers, as they are made bold already in css, and there's no point in defining the scope of the empty cell at the top left. Otherwise, you've improved that table dramatically for accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the mascot caption need a period?
  • Another image squash between mascot image and Spurrier image.
    • See above; I usually edit and read articles on a 1920x1080 screen with two windows side-by-side; is there a standard resolution this should be tested at? I haven't done anything yet because I'm not sure where else I could put the mascot picture. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of interest, what did the teams spend the money on such that they just about broke even?
    • Travel, meal, and lodging expenses for the team, marching band, cheerleaders, and administrators; unpurchased tickets from the number of tickets the bowl game mandates. Although this is about UConn's bowl game from the next year, the 2011 Fiesta Bowl, see this for an idea on how teams can lose massive money at bowl games even though there is a stated payout of millions. –Grondemar 00:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official BBVA Compass Bowl (new name as of 2011, formerly the PapaJohns.com Bowl) Website" I don't think the EL needs all this. The detail of the name change is well covered by the article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support accessible, well-written, to my eyes meets the FA criteria, nominator went the extra mile to modify templates for WP:ACCESS, a good sign indeed. Well done, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Would you have a look through the wikitext of the article as it seems to be cluttered with lots of  , please? These make the text hard to read/edit and may produce unnecessarily ugly line breaking, especially on small screens. To the best of my knowledge, the relevant guidelines indicating where to use nbsp are at MOS:NBSP, MOS:NUM#Non-breaking spaces, MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words and MOS:NUM#Unit symbols. I can't find anywhere that would justify things like "Dixon rushed for 126 yards and a touchdown on 33 carries, giving him 1,093 rushing yards on the year", for example. It is correct to write 126 yd as it separates a numerical value from its units symbol per MOS:NUM#Unit symbols, but it's not needed for 126 yards as a line wrap to start a new line with 'yards' is a perfectly good piece of typesetting. I see no reason why a line shouldn't break between '33' and 'carries', and the same applies to things like 'a touchdown'. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of the unnecessary non-breaking spaces have been removed. As you probably guessed I completely misinterpreted the MOS to mean that a non-breaking space must be placed between any number and its unit, not just between numbers and unit symbols. –Grondemar 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have thought something along those lines, but I would never be so rude as to say so :). There are some exceptions for most of the "rules" concerning numbers, units, and line-breaks especially where space is restricted (e.g. infoboxes), but you have grasped the general principle and I think the article is better for it.
Support this engaging article. I'm no expert on the subject and can't judge its comprehensiveness, but my concerns on technical issues of style and accessibility have been promptly addressed. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here.

Note to delegates: the comments on the talk page are minor and I am supporting regardless of the outcome of those points. Mike Christie (talk – library) 20:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and support! I have responded to/addressed all of them on the FAC talk page. –Grondemar 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my edits and edit summaries-- I got balled up in too many dashes in a few places, and confused by two different records, and found some MOS issues-- please review throughout and make sure the rest of the article is consistent if you keep any of my changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, Sandy; I further revised the sentence on the Cincinnati game, and went through the entire article again fixing minor grammatical issues and non-breaking spaces in dates issues, including in all of the references. Please review and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. –Grondemar 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2010_PapaJohns.com_Bowl/archive3&oldid=1089085864"