Jump to content

Talk:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl 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 31, 2021.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 13, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 24, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 24, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 26, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 16, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the UConn Huskies won the 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl to end a year marked by five games lost by 15 total points, a double-overtime victory at Notre Dame, and the murder of cornerback Jasper Howard?
Current status: Featured article

Untitled

[edit]

might be notable to add that it was FREEZING cold that day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lime in the Coconut (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's mentioned at "Game summary". Brrr. --an odd name 06:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose meets GA standards, but below are notes that can improve the writing.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Referenced mostly to national sports network ESPN and online content of local newspapers.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Compared with other college-bowl-game Featured Articles like 2009 International Bowl and 2009 Orange Bowl for 'major aspects'. This article covers all the same major topics, including Team selection, Pre-game, Game summary, Statistics, and Aftermath.
    See notes below regarding 'focused'.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    See note below regarding attendance.
  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):
    1 Non-free image with fair use rationale.
    3 Commons-hosted, Creative Commons Attribution or public domain images
    7 Locally-hosted, Creative Commons Attribution images
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Notes:
    • Please address the 2 disambiguations: Tim Brown and Brian Kelly.
    • In "Team selection" - "...Rutgers, whose fans had a better traveling reputation,..." - which references is this from?
    • 3b Focused: I find the "Connecticut" and "South Carolina" sub-sections too detailed for an article on a bowl game.
      • For example: "Connecticut's next game was their home opener, versus No. 19 North Carolina (UNC). The Huskies led 10–0 through three quarters, but North Carolina came back to tie the game with 2:36 left. On the ensuing possession, UConn left tackle Dan Ryan was called for holding in the end zone, which by the rules resulted in a safety that gave UNC the lead. The Huskies attempted and recovered an onside kick, but were unable to get in field goal range before the clock expired. North Carolina won the game 12–10." - why is such detail (5 sentences) about the second game of their season relevant to this bowl game? The same goes for the details of other games: why is "In the third quarter, with the score 21–13 in favor of Connecticut, Louisville drove down the field and had a 1st-and-10 at the UConn 14-yard-line." important to this bowl game?
        • I trimmed the North Carolina and Louisville sections. I need to mention Jasper Howard's play in the Louisville game in order to explain why he was an important player before he was murdered. I don't think at this point the team subsections are significantly longer than those in my previous featured article, 2009 International Bowl. Let me know what you think. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Better, but it is not the length that is the problem, it is the inordinate level of detail, detail with no bearing on the bowl game. While that level of detail is expected in the sub-articles (eg. 2009 Connecticut Huskies football team) it should be summarized here. Consider the detail in UConn's game against WV:
            "The Huskies continued on to the next game of the season, at West Virginia. In a back-and-forth game where the Huskies outgained the Mountaineers 501 yards to 387, Connecticut took a 24–21 lead with 3:50 left in the game on a 88–yard touchdown pass from quarterback Cody Endres to Marcus Easley. With 2:10 left, West Virginia running back Noel Devine broke free, running 62 yards down the right sideline for the game-winning touchdown. The final score was 28–24 in favor of West Virginia." → This can be summarized as follows: 'In their next game, against West Virginia, the Huskies outgained the Mountaineers 501 yards to 387 but ultimately lost after West Virginia responded to UConn's 88–yard touchdown pass with four minutes left in the game with a 62–yard touchdown run two minutes later.'
            • I shortened several of the remaining individual game lines; very few should be above two sentences now. The main exception is the UConn-Notre Dame game, which I feel is important to highlight a bit more since it was the biggest win in Connecticut football history, as noted by the head coach in the provided quote. –Grondemar 05:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use something more factual in place of "With heavy hearts...", like 'they held a moment of silence' or 'wore helmet stickers in his memory'.
    • "In the four seasons Steve Spurrier had been head coach of the Gamecocks the team had a record of 28–21,..." - name which 4 years.

Thanks for your detailed review; I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to fix before this article can be passed as a Good Article. –Grondemar 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes cont'd
    • In "South Carolina offense" - "In Wide receiver Alshon Jeffery was Garcia's favorite passing target..." - 'favorite' is more of an opinion. Unless he stated 'favorite' somewhere, I think 'most successful reciever' or 'most capable' would be more accurate.
      • The applicable quote in the source was "...true freshman Alshon Jeffery has caught 43 passes for 735 yards and six touchdowns, most coming in the final seven games. A huge target, with a knack for making acrobatic grabs, he’s become the go-to guy for erratic QB Stephen Garcia." I changed "favorite" to "most-frequent". –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4. In "Game summary", - "At least 30,000 of the fans in attendance were believed to be supporting South Carolina;[75]" - this estimation of fan support the Gamecocks had is referenced to a quote by the Gamecock coach on gamecocks.com. While the estimation is not unreasonable, I would prefer to see the "were believed" attributed in prose, like "Steve Spurrier believed at least...". Also, the same gamecocks.com reference says "More than 20,000 South Carolina fans...".
    • "Moore made a spectacular one-handed running catch, and found the end zone for the first touchdown of the day." -'spectacular' in unnecessary commentary. Opposed to the unspectacular one-handed running catches?
    • In the "Game summary" subsections, there are some colloquialism that could be better replaced with something more factaul:
      • "found the end zone" → 'and ran xx yards to score the first touchdown of the day'
        • I changed "...running catch, and found the end zone..." to "...running catch into the end zone..." as Moore does indeed run into the end zone in the process of making the catch. You can see this if you watch the ESPN highlight clip linked in the External Links section. –Grondemar 04:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "...elected to go for it..." → 'declined to punt and attempted a quarterback sneak'
      • "The Huskies attempted to make the Gamecocks pay for their misfortune." → 'The Huskies began their offensive drive in favourable position, on the Gamecocks' 32-yard line.'
      • "South Carolina went for it..." → instead of punt South Carolina attempted xx
      • "The two teams traded punts for the remainder of the half, going into the locker rooms with Connecticut holding a 13–0 lead." → 'The two teams traded punts for until halftime as Connecticut held a 13–0 lead.' (fixes the tense shift also - traded, going, holding)
      • "Dixon found the end zone from ten yards out, giving Connecticut a 20–0 lead and effectively putting the game away." - found the end zone → scored a touchdown, rushed into the end zone, etc.

-maclean (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the new comments as well as the issue with the game summaries should be fixed now. Let me know if you have any further concerns. –Grondemar 05:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. maclean (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. 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) 23:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. 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) 11:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. 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) 04:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_PapaJohns.com_Bowl&oldid=1196572189"