Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Mike Christie

Comments. Overall the article is in good shape; these generally minor points.

  • "The SEC agreed to send its ninth bowl-eligible team to the bowl starting in 2008, but never had enough bowl-eligible teams to take advantage of the bid": "never had enough" seems an odd phrase to use, unless I'm misunderstanding this -- there were only two years prior to 2010 in which the SEC could have sent a team, correct? I'd suggest "but did not have enough bowl-eligible teams in either 2008 or 2009 to take advantage of the bid".
  • You introduce the abbreviation "UConn", but you don't do so for "Pitt"; since the latter occurs only once in the article I'd suggest changing it to "Pittsburgh".
  • "at No. 5 and undefeated" seems a bit clumsy to a non-aficionado. How about "at undefeated Cincinnati, then ranked No. 5", which also clarifies that that was their ranking at that time in the season?
  • "The two wins gave UConn a final regular season record of 7–5, 3–4 in the Big East": at the start of the section you say the Huskies were picked to finish sixth in the conference; I think it would be symmetrical to give their actual position at this point in the article.
  • Should "the Gamecocks" be plural or singular? In British English it would definitely be plural, but I'm not sure about American English; I think it would be plural. I ask because you have "the Gamecocks had lost their previous 22 games" but "the Gamecocks had a record of 5–1—2–1 in the SEC—and was a consensus No. 22", with "was" implying the team is singular. You also have "UConn was largely dependent" a little later on in the article, though I've copyedited that to "had been". I also saw "penalty against it", with "it" referring to South Carolina, in the "Third quarter" section. Perhaps go through and be sure you're consistent throughout?
    Additional comment: I poked about a bit on the ESPN website to see how they did it and I'm pretty confident now that "the Gamecocks" should be plural; "South Carolina" is probably singular but I'm less sure about that. Mike Christie (talk – library) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • You are correct about proper plural usage for the team nicknames; "the Gamecocks" should be plural and "South Carolina" should be singular. –Grondemar 23:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
      OK; I fixed the one error I saw. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "he played there with the Birmingham Stallions": suggest making it "had played" and adding the dates he was there, for context. I looked in his article and couldn't find any reference to the Stallions, incidentally.
  • "Compared to previous seasons, Connecticut had a weaker defense in 2010": a bit clumsy -- how about: "Connecticut had a weaker defense in 2010 than in previous seasons"?
  • What's the purpose of the one-letter abbreviations for the officials? E.g. "Referee (R)"? I glanced through the rest of the article and don't see these used anywhere; did I miss it?
    • The one-letter abbreviations are on the backs of the officials in college football, so the fans can see which is which. If you click on the articles linked to the offical positions, you can see examples of what I'm talking about. –Grondemar 23:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
      OK, but do we need them in this article? You have the links to those positions, so a reader can click through and read about them if they wish. I checked a couple of other game FAs (2005 Sugar Bowl, 2009 Orange Bowl) and neither of them list the officials, so I couldn't tell if this is usual practice. I think the list of officials itself is a good idea, I just think the letter abbreviations are a distraction. This is not a sport I know much about, though, so if you feel strongly this is valuable please say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Not FAC-related, but just curious (I don't know much about American football): what does "4–41" mean in the "penalties" row of the game stats box? Four penalties for a total of 41 yards penalized?
  • As far as I can tell there's no link to Papa John's Pizza, the company that sponsors the bowl; I think that should be worked in somewhere.

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/2010_PapaJohns.com_Bowl/archive3&oldid=419803577"