Jump to content

Talk:2005 ACC Championship Game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2005 ACC Championship Game is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 11, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 28, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 2, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
May 24, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
September 28, 2009Featured topic removal candidateKept
March 31, 2010Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
May 4, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article



Toolbox

GA Review

[edit]

Congratulations; this article meets the requirements of a good article! My goal for this review is to be a thorough as possible, and I’ve broken the review into three sections; initial comments, assessment, and suggestions.

Initial comments:

  • Extremely well-written and engaging prose; everything you could possible want to know about the game is probably in the article; bravo!
  • The most important part, the references, are detailed and spot-on


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

While there aren’t any issues that prevent this article from meeting GA requirements, there are several minor issues or ideas that could help enhance the article.

Suggestions for future improvement:

  • In the second paragraph of the introduction, it says, “Against fifth-ranked Miami on Thursday night, however, Tech suffered its first defeat….” Instead of listing the day of the week that the game was played on, it makes more sense to include the Month and number day (like March 25, for example).
  • Concerning the included photo of Marcus Vick, please consider changing the caption to note the picture was not actually taken during the 2005 ACC Championship, as done in the caption for the Drew Weatherford picture
  • The second sentence of the third introduction paragraph uses the word “game” three times; consider replacing one of those instantces with a word like “contest” to decrease the repetition.
  • Wikilinks to North Carolina State and Clemson in the third paragraph of the intro might be useful to the reader, as would wikilinks to the Atlantic and Coastal Divisions mentioned even earlier in the intro
  • Under the “Defensive Matchups” section, the part about Florida State seems short on info compared to the Virginia Tech section. If you could find it, it would be cool to include Florida State’s national rank in pass defense or another related stat, and it would be an easy opportunity to compare their rankings in similar categories.
  • With so many great references, maybe you could pull out a quote from one of the players or coaches and incorporate it into the article using a quote box
  • Wikilink the first mention of Marcus Vick in the article, which occurs in the Virginia Tech part of the “Selection Process” section. In general, it’s not a bad idea to wikilink the first mention of a person/place/thing of interest in the article, as the reader coming across it for the first time might want more info on the subject when they first encounter it. Wikilinking a subject after the first instance it’s mention is much less important.
  • To begin the fourth paragraph of the “Fourth Quarter" section, it says, “By this point in the game, Florida State was fully committed to running down the , executing….” It appears the word “clock” needs to be inserted before the comma.


For anyone else reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAN to help with our current backlog of nominations. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with this article in the future! Monowi Monowi (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested review

[edit]

I have been asked to review this article by JKBrooks85 because I know nothing at all about American Football. My brief is to check for clarity to a complete outsider.

  • Lead:
    • I had to click the link to discover that Miami were the Hurricanes. I suggest changing the Miami link to read Miami Hurricanes.
      • Changed.
    • The meanwhile isn't needed here, nor later on.
      • Removed.
    • The link to Atlantic division schedule doesn't help me to understand, is there a better one?
      • Unfortunately not. The best thing I can do is emphasize the next sentence, which discusses one of those "tough" games.
    • I would delete heading into the game.
      • Deleted.
    • Offence means the offence?
      • Yes. Clarified.
    • Run out the clock. This is the biggest problem for me in understanding the article. The term renders the subsequent Game summary section very difficult to follow. Could do with have a footnote or a link about the clock rule.?
  • Selection process
    • The first occurrence of NCAA is not linked, but the second occurrence is. And could the first occurrence be spelled out?
      • Done.
    • Heading into means at the start?
      • Replaced.
    • just 35 total yards it's the total that is lost on me.
      • Wikilinked.
    • beating the Yellow Jackets same problem as with Miami in the Lead. I didn't know that Georgia Tech and the Yellow Jackets are the same team. I had to look it up. (And, I see that Miami is linked better here).
      • Fixed ... I think.
    • Does stumbled have a precise meaning in this sport?
      • Rewrote to eliminate "stumbled."
    • were picked as pre-season favorites to win their division - is picking a favourite a formal part of the game, or were they just the favourites?
      • Clarified.
  • Pre-game buildup
    • the key, means key player?
      • Rewrote.
    • There is some unhelpful linking here:ranking and an offense that tallied 610 rushing yards -the rushing link helps with understanding offense more than rushing yards.
      • Hmm... what would you suggest? I've expanded the link to include rushing yards, not just rushing, but I'm open to suggestions.
    • Winningest I had to look this up. A new word from 1972 I see, do you want to cite Webster on-line.[1]?
      • Were you able to deduct the meaning, or did you have to refer to the dictionary to understand the sentence? If the former, I'm inclined to leave it in. If the latter, I'd be willing to rewrite the sentence.
  • Offensive matchups

This is where all the big problems for me start. More links would help idiots like me: Touchdown, Interception(s), Yardage, Threw for, Ran for, for example. (Oh, I see interception is linked further down). I can't help you very much with this or the next section, because of my ignorance. But I can tell that it would be exciting to read by a reader who knows the game, just by the good prose style.

    • Well, thanks for the compliment, at least. I've added a flurry of new links, but if you've got any other ideas, I'd be willing to hear them out.
  • Game summary

Here my problem is with the clock as I noted above: run down the clock, run off the clock. Again, a footnote or link(s) might help.

    • Linked down here, too.
  • Final stats
    • Is fumble a technical term?
  • Post game effects

What's a traffic stop?

    • Linked.

That's it. Please remember that these are suggestions. I am sure that when you were reading the above you were thinking what's wrong with this idiot. :-) Best of luck with the article and best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 14:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look-over

[edit]

Those links are very helpful, I hope an expert doesn't complain about over-linking, if so I will take all the links out of one of my virus articles and test them. My "problem" now, having spent so much time reading the article, is that I am becoming familiar with the terminology and I'm finding it harder to spot the jargon. I see the article was a FAC, but did not garner much interest. Should it return, it will have my support for what it is worth, given my ignorance. Well done. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary thoughts - Elcobbola

[edit]

Note that these are merely thoughts/suggestions from someone who knows nothing about American football.

  • Lead:
    • “The game was the concluding contest of the regular season for each team” seems obvious/redundant – of course a championship game is going to be the final game of the season. At the least, the “for each team” is not necessary.
      • It's the final game of the regular season, but each team has a bowl game following the conference championship game, so I can't say that the game is their final one of the season. I've clarified that and removed the "for each team." JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • “newly expanded conference” seems abrupt with out foremention of the addition of teams. Something like “recently expanded Atlantic Coast Conference” would read a bit better while maintaining brevity, but it’s certainly not optimal.
      • Reworded.
    • “started strong”; verbs are rightly modified by adverbs. Further, this is a colloquialism; it’s not appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
      • Remove
    • The last sentence of the lead’s second paragraph is not only half of the paragraph (run-on), but awkward and difficult to comprehend.
      • Reworded
    • “winning against … [a] schedule”; this is awkward phrasing.
      • Reworded
    • “Tough losses …”; how so tough? Tough to and per whom?
      • Rephrased to "close."
    • “The game was a rematch” seems, again, abrupt. Rephrasing to something like “Having played one another in the 2000 National Championship Game, the game was a rematch and point of public interest” would flow better (again, my wording is an example and likely not optimal).
      • Rephrased.
    • The first sentence of the forth paragraph is redundant to information contained in the first paragraph.
      • Reworded, integrated into flow of paragraph.
  • Selection process
    • It would be helpful to explicitly state that no championship game had existed previously; "the game resulted from" does not articulate this well.
      • Stated.
    • The article uses "the game" to refer to the 2005 ACC game. Use of "the game", as in the example immediately above, in this section should be avoided to keep the distinction between the general game and this specific game clear.
      • Added clarifier "championship."
    • Why was Boston's entry delayed?
      • Clarified.
  • Virginia Tech
    • Spell out NC State for its first occurrence.
      • Done.
    • "fended off"; text implies Vick did this alone; is that correct?
      • Clarified.
    • "Virginia Tech began the season with an 8–0 record"; How does one begin with 8 wins. That's a nice handicap. Clarify they are previous season stats.
      • Clarified.
    • Why would a loss to the Hurricanes normally have knocked them out?
      • Clarified.
    • "won ... games on its schedule"; as opposed to games on another team's schedule?
      • Clarified.
  • General
    • Consistency issues: ranking adjectives are alternatively, for example, "fifth-ranked", "No. 3" and "#15"; 2005 ACC Championship is alternatively referred to as a "contest" and as a "game"; Florida state is alternatively referred to as "Florida States", "the Seminoles" and "FSU"; and Virginia is alternatively "Virginia Tech" and "Hokies". Pick one term/format and use consistently through-out.
      • Fixed the ranking issue. The team issue I'm reluctant to change simply because it creates a situation where a reader is forced to read the same noun over and over again. It creates a dullness and repetition that doesn't have to be there. If it's at all confusing, let me know, but a reader who has read through the article from the beginning of the section — let alone the beginning of the article — should be able to understand who we're talking about.
    • Heavy use of the "seemed". What something "seems" is a subjective interpretation and we are not given adequate indication of from whom this interpretation is coming. Further, such phrasing does not appear befitting an encyclopedia and we should not editorialize.
      • Removed.
    • What does "on the ground" mean? Is that the same as "on the field", which is also used? If so, that's another consistency issue.
      • Clarified.
    • "ranked first in the nation for total defense, scoring defense, and pass defense"; wouldn't total include scoring and pass? Also, succeeding sentence says "In pass defense, the Hokies were second in the nation". Isn't this contradictory?
      • Fixed.
    • WP:PEACOCK words such as "good seasons", "impressive year", "strong season", etc.
      • Removed.
    • Sentences shouldn't start with "because".
      • No, they shouldn't.
    • Generally unencyclopedic prose, such as “passing attack”, “the kick sailed”, “returned to work”, use of “fell” to describe losing, “tallied” to describe accumulation, “moribund…defence” (seems almost WP:NPOV), “began work”, "spark a third quarter surge", "dominated" to describe sound defeats, etc. Overall, article may rely too heavily on ESPN game play-by-plays. Verbiage is, at times, too colloquial and, again, not befitting an encyclopedia article. I suppose some may argue that there's a case for the announcer-style shtick, I find it distracting/imprecise/inappropriate.
      • Removed or rewrote the instances you mentioned. Most of it comes from my background -- it's simply how I write sports copy -- but I can understand how it'd be distracting or counterproductive to someone unfamiliar with the sport. I've tried to eliminate most of the egregious examples.
    • Suspected WP:OR: "would be even more important”, "far more difficult road", etc.
      • Removed.

I haven't addressed everything I noted, but this will give you a start. I apologise for my lack of expediency. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate

[edit]

I am copying the following suggestions from this Featured Article Candidate page. It looks like the FAC is not active so it might be better to have these suggestions here:

  • Looks like a very good article but I do have some suggestions:
  1. I would suggest the first sentence link to college football rather than American football. College football is more specific and I think it would be easier for people to navigate from that article to "American football" rather than the opposite.
    • Done.
  1. I am concerned about sentences that state what "characterized" the game. This term is used twice in the lead and neither is referenced. The second usage is "The first two quarters of the game were characterized by defense and penalties that stifled both teams' offenses." I know references our style guide does not require references in the lead. However, I continue to think they are good practice because it makes it much easier on the reader to check out a fact. So, I searched the article to see if a WP:RS was given to back up these being major elements of the first half. It seems as though the reference for this is the play-by-play reference. The play-by-play reference, of course, merely reports what happened in a dry, factual way. It reports the penalties but does not explain whether they are more or less than average. It reports the scoring (or lack thereof) but does not give a clear indication if a low score is a result of good defense or poor offense, etc. I think it would be stronger to cite a second source that draws this conclusion about what characterized the game. This would avoid any argument about the claim being WP:OR.
  2. I suggest refocusing the lead. Currently, there is a lot of information about the selection process and how the teams ended up facing each other. I think it could be confusing for a reader unfamiliar with these things. It is important information for the article, certainly, but I wonder if it could be trimmed in the lead. Conversely, the Vick story might be of interest to a casual reader and it is not mentioned in the lead at all.
    • Done. The lede covers the different portions of the article. I've added the Vick thing to the end and changed a few things.
  1. It looks like you have done a good job at linking football terms on first usage but I think a couple have slipped through: Running back is linked on its 3rd usage, but not its first. punt return is linked but punt is not.
    • Linked.
  1. In Final Statistics, there is a "didn't" that should be a "did not" per the WP:MOS.
    • Fixed.
  1. I can't find references for the game MVP, attendance, TV station, announcers, or TV rankings.
    • Referenced.
That is from my first read-through. I think there is enough here to Oppose [for FA] for now. I'm happy to discuss any of these or to give it a new read if you feel these have been addressed. Johntex\talk 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winningest in sports articles under discussion

[edit]

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles. Until consensus is reached, articles should be reverted to the previous stable version, per the policy WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." —Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 ACC Championship Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 ACC Championship Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2005 ACC Championship Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let people know that this article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 3, 2019, and specifically paging the FA nominator(s), JKBrooks85. It would be good if someone checked that the article needs no amendments. The main page blurb text can be viewed and edited at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 3, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JKBrooks85 and other interested editors. This is to let you know that as a part of preparing this article for TFA I have asked GOCE to run an eye over it for MoS-compliance and grammar, and possibly tweaking a little of the language to ensure that it is at it's very best for its appearance on the main page. If you have any queries about any of the edits don't hesitate to let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ACC Championship Game which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_ACC_Championship_Game&oldid=1221381009"