Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1924 Rose Bowl/archive3

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 Ian Rose 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

1924 Rose Bowl

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. I am nominating this for featured article because, like both previous times, I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It has received a peer review and a copyedit. At the first FAC, there was one support, and two reviews that had been addressed, and for the second one, there were four supports and one oppose. Again, this is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic.

From last time, the 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated. Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05

As a whole I think this is an excellent article. The biggest concerns remain with prose, but I think these can be solved over this review.

Team selection

~~The last sentence in Washington's subsection is unneeded as this is explained earlier.~~

Removed. I had been thinking about axing that sentence earlier.

Game summary

~~"Two plays later, Ira McKee ran the ball in from two yards out for a touchdown. McKee then converted the extra point." I would merge these two sentences to make it flow a bit more.~~

Combined.

~~Change "tying the game at 14–14" to "tying the game at 14".~~

Removed the extra 14.

Aftermath

~~Remove the quotation marks around A Streetcar Named Desire.~~

Removed the quotation marks. I have no clue why I left those for so long.

Thanks for the review, especially for how quick you responded. I have attempted to address all of your points, all of which were mistakes I should have caught a while ago. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support after fixes. Great work on the article! Toa Nidhiki05 03:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I reviewed this article during its previous two trips to FAC, offering in-depth suggestions which Awardgive implemented or gave appropriate consideration. It was good to begin with, and has improved greatly through the process, and so I had also supported it before. I'm impressed by the research Awardgive has put into the article, particularly given the paucity of records from a game 89 years in the past. It's remarkably thorough and precise even compared with many more recent games. I think the comments above from Toa Nidhiki05 are reasonable (definitely on point with the quotation marks) so once these changes are made, I would encourage anyone reviewing this to join me in strongly supporting it for FAC. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for putting up with a review for the third time in a row. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

File:RoseBowl-construction1921.jpg: source needs to be clarified—"Wikipedia" is not acceptable

I added a source.

Otherwise images seem appropriately tagged & licensed

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I can't believe that I missed that for so long. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Isn't postseason one word, sans hyphen?

Yep, corrected it.

"Following the inaugural game's blowout score," Linking the original one here would be helpful, though I see it is later in the article.

Linked it.

"including congressmen Andrew Fenic and high-ranking military officials." I'm not sure about this one. I can't find anything about an Andrew Fenic online, let alone on-wiki. I'd remove that part of the sentence.

I had to remove it. That was the one source I originally got from Google News, and since they've completely changed how the site works, I have no clue how I'm going to find it again. Looks like I really should have linked it.

I'd imagine you have been asked this already, but any reactions or comments at the time on Washington taking Navy over other stronger teams?

Actually, that seems to be the one question I haven't been asked yet. But anyways, I couldn't find any reactions, which I was slightly shocked about.

"The game began on time, with a temperature" Did this mean it in fact started at 2, or the rescheduled 2:16? Not entirely clear, but I may be over-thinking it.

It started at 2:16. I tried to clarify that.

"completing a perfect six of six passes," maybe reword to "completing all six passing attempts" just to make the language crisper.

Changed, and it does sound better.

A good article overall, just make the above fixes and I'll support. Wizardman 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I tried to respond/address all of your concerns. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good now. Wizardman 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Awardgive. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

All ref formats are OK. As far as I can judge, the sources are all of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability to meet FA statndards. I have not carried out spotchecks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.