Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 ACC Championship Game

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [1].

2008 ACC Championship Game

edit
Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

2008 ACC Championship Game is a component of the Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games featured topic and another in a continuing series of college football articles I've submitted to FAC. I feel it is well-written, understandable, adequately cited, and uses appropriate images with necessary licenses. I've incorporated suggestions given in previous FACs of similar articles, 2003 Insight Bowl and 2007 ACC Championship Game in particular. I've used the link-checker and disambiguation-page tools to check for problems, and these have been fixed. The citations are uniformly formatted, and the prose is as clear as I can make it without more outside input. I look forward to seeing what issues and problems you can find, and I look forward to fixing them. Thanks for your time, and have a great day! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (all issues have been addressed) – Excellent article, very in-depth and well-cited throughout. Nicely laid out and makes good use of images. I have a few comments, mostly related to minor stylistic improvements or minor requests for clarification. Once these are addressed, I think it will meet FAC 1–4. The article meets FA criteria 1–4, in my opinion. Strikehold (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per WP:LEAD, I believe the boldfaced title should be un-linked. Appearances of the terms thereafter should be linked.
  • I think you're right. Fixed.
  • Are championship games considered part of the regular season? I would be led to believe they are not, as the results do not affect the teams' conference records... I am unsure either way and may be mistaken, however.
  • I'm not sure ... I've always been under the impression that bowl games were the start of the postseason in college football. I definitely can see it the other way, though. If you think it should be the other way around, I'd be happy to change it. I can go either way, I think.
  • Also think the fact that this was a re-match of the previous year's ACCCG merits mention somewhere in the lead.
  • Good idea. Added.
  • I think the term "extreme parity" might be redundant. Parity seems to me to mean equality, so gradations of it seem a bit contradictory. Might I suggest use of "extremely close," "closely contested," or simply "parity"?
  • Reworded.
  • "Never relinquished the lead or allowed a tie." I think "never relinquished the lead" is sufficient as allowing a tie would relinquish a lead.
  • Reworded.
  • In the fourth paragraph of the lead you use "Tech quarterback Tyrod Taylor" twice, I think the part saying he was MVP you could simply use "Taylor" or "Virginia Tech's Taylor."
  • Reworded.
  • "The ACC Championship Game matches up the winner of the Coastal and Atlantic Divisions..." – Shouldn't this be "winners"? Or "winner of the Coastal Division and Atlantic Division"? Not sure...
  • Fixed.
  • In the paragraph addressing the games history, you refer to teams which make their first appearance as "new" teams. To me, so soon after describing three teams joining the conference (VT, Miami, and BC), it seems to imply that those were teams actually new to the conference. Wake Forest was a founding member and Georgia Tech joined in the 70s, so that seems a little misleading. Can you change it somehow to indicate that these were teams making their "first appearance" rather than "new teams"?
  • Fixed.
  • In the predictions for the ACCCG, you mention Clemson losing to "eventual No. 1 Alabama." People at the time didn't think much of Alabama, though, and as a result thought Clemson was a lot worse than they really. That may merit a mention (if you or I can find an adequate citation), as losing to an eventual late-season No. 1 and SEC championship team shouldn't in itself upset predictions for a spot in the ACCCG.
  • Removed the "eventual No. 1". Trying to clarify what people thought at the time would've taken too much prose to be worthwhile, and leaving it in there makes the loss sound better than it was, so it's easier to remove it.
  • In the BC paragraph: "raced to a 9–7 halftime lead." Seems overly emotional use of the verb, and also inappropriate as I don't think nine points in a half could be considered as racing to score repeatedly.
  • Reworded.
  • "...gave the Eagles a 2–1 conference record, and they appeared to be destined for an easy bid to the ACC championship game." With only three games completed (and only two wins), why did it appear like an easy bid to the ACCCG? They still had five games remaining, were they all against heavy underdogs?
  • Removed "easy". That's an opinion word, anyway.
  • According to the ACC tiebreaker rules, "If two or more teams are tied with the highest percentage of wins, they shall be declared division co-champions." Thus, BC/FSU and VT/GT were division co-champions. The tie-breaker rules are simply to decide who appears in the ACCCG to represent each division ("...tie-breaker procedure will be used to determine that divisions’ representative to the championship game."). This was pointed out to me on the ACC standings talk page.
  • Interesting! I didn't know that. It's been fixed.
  • A stylistic gripe, but you use "lightly regarded" three times by my count. I would favor cutting its use to once and instead using a more common term like "underdog."
  • Replaced one usage with underdog and wikilinked it.
  • There's a small degree of inconsistency in the way teams are referred. You use the full "Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets" and "North Carolina Tar Heels", but shortened school form "Notre Dame" and "Kent State", and then the full school name "East Carolina University." I would recommend using the short form of the school name in initial references and then the short school form alternating with the nickname where stylistic variation is needed (like use in the same sentence, for example). But since its just stylistic, I think any form you go with would be acceptable as long as its consistent.
  • In the places I used the long form of the name, it's because I referred to the teams as the "Yellow Jackets" or "Tar Heels" later in the sentence or in the next sentence.
  • Okay. As long as you have applied a consistent system to it, I'm satisfied.
  • In the Boston College offense para: As of the 2008 season, there are 120 Division I FBS teams, not 119. This is still misquoted in some media outlets (as I imagine is the case in the print news article cited), but Western Kentucky was promoted starting in 2008, bringing the total to 120. (see here [2]).
  • Fixed. I didn't think Western Kentucky was a full FBS member until next season.
  • WKU has been "in transition" since 2007 and won't be eligible for bowls until next season when they join the Sun Belt. But I'm pretty sure they are considered FBS. I've seen them usually lumped in with the other FBS independents (like here at ESPN).
  • Does "Beamer Ball" deserve a mention in the team comparison section? Most people agree that compiling non-offensive scores is a major aspect of Beamer's strategy. How did VT do on special teams and defensive scoring this season?
  • I didn't think it was exceptionally good or exceptionally bad ... IMHO, that's something that belongs in the main Virginia Tech football section rather than this subsection because it's something that defines the team, rather than the season of which this game was a part. Now, if you think it's necessary to understand the game, I can add something in there. My initial thought with these games is to leave it out because it's something that defines the team, rather than a season or game.
  • That works for me.
  • In the statistical recap, is "profligate" the right term? Would prolific be more appropriate? If not, I think you should explain why it was reckless. Was it because of the two interceptions? Lack of down conversions? Easier reads by the opposing defense?
  • Fixed. You're right.
  • In the post-game effects: Can you expand upon the bowl game selections. Obviously, VT got an automatic berth in the BCS game. But, BC fell to the 5th-pick Music City Bowl despite being the ACC runners-up. In my opinion, (of course we'll need to find a citation) this is due to a perception of BC's fanbase traveling poorly. There is actually an NCAA rule called the "Boston College rule" or something to that effect, which ensures that teams don't fall too far in bowl selection.
  • My thought was that problem should be in the 2008 Music City Bowl article rather than this one. Do you think it's necessary to talk about it? I do agree that more should be written about the bowl games, and have added results and other information.
  • If you can find a source, I think it merits inclusion. I looked briefly, but couldn't find one. I think it might be important because it was a direct-effect of the game's results: If BC had won, they would have gone to the first-tier ACC game automatically. Since they lost they fell to the (tied for) fifth-pick game.
  • I think a one- or two-sentence mention is warranted, as this happened as a direct result of this game. So I think it is one of the more important "post-game effects." These references might help:
  • 2008 ACC bowl selection process: "If the ACC FCG runner-up is available, and has won a minimum of eight games, then Music City Bowl must select that team, unless that team agrees to being selected by another bowl."
  • Wapo (from last year, but gives historical perspective): "...Boston College this week, a historically shoddy track record of fan travel to bowl games -- a major consideration for selection committees..."
  • Yahoo/Rivals.com: "With the program lacking a large group of traveling fans, this season’s squad - again the ACC runner-up - slipped to the Music City Bowl, which had the fifth selection in the ACC. The bowl was obliged to choose the title game’s loser if it had not yet been selected."
  • The BC coaching changes section: I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but I think it needs to be made explicit why this was related to the ACCCG. Could it be because Jagodzinski surprised everyone with his team's performance in the season, which resulted in the NFL interest?
  • I've been looking for a citation that explains exactly that. ... Haven't had any luck, though. I'll keep working at it, and will keep adding to the post-game effects section as events develop. The 2009 NFL Draft, in particular, will probably develop into a subsection when it takes place.
  • Note on images: An email was sent to the image permissions account last month, but it looks as if no admin added the correct OTRS. The ticket number is 2008120910013531, and if someone could help resolve this, I'd appreciate it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://bleacherreport.com/
      • I wouldn't rely on bleacherreport to justify any facts, but in this case, the reference is just being used to back up the assertion that people were calling the regular season "crazy". If you don't like that cite, another source is citing the same thing, but from a media (instead of fan) viewpoint.
    • Current ref 60 (Rudie, Preston...) has a last access date and from the publisher it appears to be a website, but no link. It go missing? Also, what makes this a reliable source? (I'll go ahead and ask before I see the link, just based off the name of the site).
      • Link added. It's a TV news channel in Tampa Bay, the site of the game. I just forgot to add the link to it.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. And welcome to FAC! (Ooops, got you confused with the newcomer who brought a bowl game to FAC! (blushes)) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The JKBrooks series of bowl game articles has become something that I always look forward to seeing at FAC. As the pages continue to become more refined, I'm struggling to find issues. There are some below, but my support isn't that far away.

  • Noun-plus-ing in the lead: "with both teams punting after their opening possessions failed to gain a first down."
  • Fixed.
  • The ACC standings chart, while a great original idea, looks weird for me. The header is cut in half for me.
  • Cut in half in what way?
  • Team selection: Another noun-plus-ing: "with the two teams meeting in the championship game."
  • Fixed.
  • Boston College: "Against the Georgia Tech". Little glitch there. And find a better word to start a sentence than "But", which begins the next sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • Check the capitalization of "ACC championship game" a couple times in the section. Please do the same for division and Division, which I see later.
  • Fixed.
  • Virginia Tech: The Kansas Jayhawks link goes to the 2008 team; shouldn't it go to the 2007 team?
  • Fixed.
  • Is Chestnut Hill part of Boston? Just checking.
  • It's a part of greater Boston, at least according to the article on the subject.
  • Pre-game buildup: "with various betting organizations either favoring Boston College by a single point or having no spread at all." Noun-plus-ing for the third time.
  • Fixed.
  • Attendance concerns: "To mitigate the problems seen in Jacksonville the year nrgotr". I see many fairly exotic words while reviewing, but the last word here is probably the most exotic I've seen so far. :-)
  • Heh. That'll teach me to keep my hands on the home row!

That will do for now, but I'll be back in the next day or two for more. Before I go, why is there a Commons link for college football? That seems to be too general for the topic. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. I typically throw the college football link in the lede as a guide for non-American readers who might stumble across the article. Sure, anyone who doesn't know what college football is isn't likely to be searching for an individual game, but I'd rather throw it in there just in case. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First quarter (long gap between problems!): "where the Hokies' offense began the first play of the game." Somewhat awkward.
  • Fixed.
  • "Virginia Tech called a timeout in order to formulate its next offensive play." Some wordiness to consider removing.
  • Removed.
  • Second quarter: "Facing third down and needing 20 yards for a first down". It was a third-and-19, according to the reference. I could tell because the math doesn't add up.
  • Fixed. Dang, nice catch! I may have gotten that incorrect measurement from the game tape.
  • "Taylor scrambled on third down, gaining up eight yards and a first down."
  • Removed.
  • "Rather than run a play, Boston College elected to run out the clock with Virginia Tech leading, 14-7." They actually did run a play, for a one-yard loss. I'm guessing they just downed the ball, but saying they didn't run a play isn't accurate.
  • Fixed. Changed it to "rather than try to score".
  • Third quarter: "and the Boston College Eagles were forced to punt after going three and out." Is the full team name really needed?
  • Nope. Removed.
  • Fourth quarter: "The fumble was again recovered by Boston College linebacker Heinzerlich and Boston College's offense returned to the field." Did we mention when this guy previously recovered a fumble? I don't even see his first name anywhere. There is a "Herzlich" in the Eagles' defense; is there a bad typo here?
  • Double right. I have no idea where I got "Heinzerlich" from, but Herzlich did have a fumble recovery at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Doesn't look as if I put his name in for that one, so I'll take out the "again". With it in there, it makes it sound as if he recovered the same fumble twice.
  • Statistical summary: Can the one-sentence paragraph at the end be moved into the first paragraph of the section? It looks a little lonely down there.
  • Yeah. I had hoped to create a paragraph about records set, but decided against it. Moved.
  • Postgame effects: The two monetary figures need non-breaking spaces, like this (hit edit button to see where to put code): $17.5 million.
  • Fixed.
  • Perhaps link the Southeastern Conference?
  • Linked.
  • Boston College coaching changes: "to interview for the vacant head coaching position at the National Football League's New York Jets." Change "at" to "of"?
  • Changed to "with".
  • Reference 41 needs a publisher. I recommend the method used in ref 12.
  • Added.
I'm all done now, though I'm sure Dabomb can find more things to fix in his concurrent review. Left a note on the template above as well. It looks great overall, and I'll be ready to support when these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article is a perfect example of how even a great formula can be further refined. Although it's been less than two months since the game, I think it's the best article in JK's series so far, with the lone exception of that one table. My original theory was that it was due to its left placement (left-sided photos below level 3 section headers cause accessibility problems), but moving it to the right didn't help at all. Despite that, I think the rest of the article is FA-worthy, so I won't withhold support. It does concern me somewhat, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tucked it in that section, but it doesn't look quite as nice any more, since it now juts into the Boston College section and has to be separated with a wide spread of white space. It may look a little better with a different screen resolution, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent article, I notice that your prose has improved a lot too!

  • "The game was sponsored by Dr. Pepper and was the final regular-season contest of the " The "was ... was" repetition is distracting. Maybe: "The game, sponsored by Dr. Pepper, was the final regular-season contest of the..."
  • Fixed.
  • There needs to be a key and accompanying symbols for the standings table. What do the shadings for Virginia Tech and Boston College represent?
  • Added. I swear, this table keeps getting uglier.
  • Removed bolding.
  • "Prior to"-->before (multiple occurences)
  • Fixed.
  • "In the annual preseason poll of media covering the ACC" A bit vague; did the poll cover the ACC or was it the media that covered the ACC. The noun + -ing construction ("media covering") is a bit awkward.
  • I added "by". Let me know if that helps.
  • One problem I am noticing is the usage of unnecessary commas before the introduction of game scores:
    • "which Virginia Tech won, 30–16."
    • "whom the Eagles defeated, 21–0."
    • "eventually losing, 19–16,"
    • "beating Central Florida, 34–7, Audit throughout for these."
      • The scores are optional clauses, so they need to be set off by commas.
  • "During the last two games of the regular season, however, the Hokies managed two victories"
  • Removed.
  • "category outside of the top 25"
  • Removed.
  • "which gained just 319 yards"
  • Removed.
  • I think I mentioned in one of your previous FACs about comparable quantities being written out the same, a couple examples:
  • "33 tackles (11 for loss) and a team-high seven sacks" "seven"-->7
  • "in tackles with 98—fifth among all Division I players—and interceptions, with six" "98"-->ninety-eight or "six"-->6.
  • I'm trying to get that exception changed ... I really, really, really, really hate that exception to the general rule that you spell out numbers nine and under and use numerals for 10 and over. I don't know why I hate it so much -- it's irrational, but I just do.
  • Yep, I saw your post on WT:MOSNUM. I take just the opposite view for largely the same reason :) However, if (by some miracle) you can get that guideline to be changed by the time this nomination finishes, feel free to disregard this comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "permitting just 275 yards per game" Let the rankings speak for themselves.
  • Removed.
  • "United States on ABC" Spell out ABC on its first appearance (there are other TV stations called ABC)

Can't wait to return for the game summary! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The official reported attendance was 53,927,[72] but this number came from the number of tickets sold,[73][62][74] and the actual attendance in the stadium—measured by admittance turnstiles—was 27,360, the lowest ever recorded for an ACC football championship game." For the sake of flow, I think that this should be split into two sentences.
  • Split.
  • "ensuring the Eagles would receive "-->ensuring that the Eagles would receive
  • Fixed.
  • "Despite that initial success," I wouldn't call a four-yard pass "success".
  • Changed to "gain".
  • "where the Boston College offense had its first play of the game" "had"-->ran.
  • Changed.
  • "but the Hokies earned the first first down " I really, really don't like the repetition of "first". Maybe "initial"?
  • Changed.
  • "Taylor then threw an incomplete pass, then the Hokies were penalized 10 yards for holding, pushing them back to the 31-yard line." "then ... then". They are really not necessary.
  • Removed.
  • "Jeff Jagodzinski ordered kicker Jeff Aponavicius into the game" "ordered"-->sent
  • Changed.
  • "The pick by the Music City Bowl represented a drop in prestige for Boston College." Not sure where you got this information from.
  • Well, the Music City Bowl has a smaller payout and reaches a smaller television audience than any of the alternative destinations Boston College could have been selected by. In addition, it has a shorter history than the alternatives and is seen generally as a less prestigious destination for all of these factors.

Comments No comments on the actual match part of the article due to my inability to fathom the ins and outs of American football matches, but some comments on the preceding parts:

  • The ACC Championship Game matches the winners of - maybe its my lack of familiarity with US sports vernacular, but "matches" seems imprecise. Would "is contested between" be an improvement?
  • I'm not sure ... that seems a little verbose. Does the confusion stem from the British English term of a "football match"?
Probably just a Br. Eng / Am. Eng thing. To me "match" in a sporting context is a synonym for "game", rather than "pair".
  • one new team and one old team featured in the contest - from looking at their respective articles, the teams both formed in 1892, so "new to the Championship game" must be the intended meaning, but it is ambiguous as written.
  • Fixed. Changed it to refer to a championship-game veteran and one new to a championship game.
  • A hard-fought game resulted in a 30–16 Virginia Tech victory - the reference makes no mention of the game being hard-fought.
  • Removed.
  • Before Virginia Tech was declared the 2007 ACC football champion, cities other than Jacksonville (site of the 2007 ACC Championship Game) presented their plans... - I'm having trouble following the chronology, and the significance of the first part of the sentence. Did this process take place before the 2007 Championship Game, or is there some event at which a team is declared champion?
  • The idea was to use it as a transition sentence between that section and the section before it. The debates about the site of the game began before Virginia Tech won the 2007 game, an event described in the previous section. The events overlap chronologically, if not in subject.
Then it would be simpler to start the sentence with something like "Before the 2007 ACC Championship game..."

Support. Another well written and comprehensive article by JKBrooks85. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern: the "free" images check out fine. Eric M. Ryan's photos are licensed with the OTRS, and for the exterior stadium shot, Marc Averette is associated with his user name here. The "non-free" logo is the sticking point. I would prefer a defining moment of the match to be the identifying picture&mdashlthe winning touchdown, a terrifying injury, a brilliant catch, a picture that is heavily reported and touted in the media. The trademarked, copyrighted logo as an identifying picture is rather overused, leading to arguments and contentions till there was an RFC that had no concensus. Ignoring that, the logo if used as an identifying image should convince us of its purpose as that, and not because it is "aesthetically pleasing". Neither would it "provides vital information with a simple glance" to the "reader unwilling to delve into the text of the article", because it tells the reader nothing about the two sides that took part or the outcome of the match. "Title sponsor, television broadcaster, and the name of the event" can be represented by text. As it is, the current rationale fails WP:NFCC#1 and #8. The solution is simple, write a stronger rationale that can explain why this logo is instrumental to the 2008 ACC Championship or remove it from the article. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is sufficient for identification, the image issue as stated above for this article is resolved. Jappalang (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2009 (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/2008_ACC_Championship_Game&oldid=1088824524"