Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

College football
WikiProject
Information
Project page talk
College football Portal talk
Participants talk
2007 NCAA FBS Season talk
2007-08 Bowl Games talk
2007 Rankings talk
Project category talk
Master Team Table talk
Team images talk
Year Page Format talk
Notability guidelines talk
To do list talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  •Worklist  •Log
Newsletter talk
Collaboration of the Month talk
Peer review talk
Tools
Project banner talk
Persondata talk
WP:CFB Templates talk
{{subst:CFBwelcome-project}} talk
Photos on Commons
Userboxes
Project Userbox talk
NCAA Teams talk
edit · changes

Article development path

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Check against featured article criteria and good article criteria
  4. Get feedback from WikiProject
  5. Get broader creative feedback
  6. Apply for featured article or good article status
  7. Featured articles and Good articles
Shortcuts:
WP:CFBPR
WP:CFB/PR

The peer review department of the College football WikiProject conducts peer reviews of articles on requests. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.


The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on. Generally, most reviews will be conducted before nominating an article for Good Article or Featured Article status.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the College football WikiProject. You do not need to be a member of the WikiProject to review an article.

Contents

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page.
  2. From there, click on the "currently" link that appears in red in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~). Also specify if you are going for Good article, Featured article, or neither as this may require different levels of scrutiny.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

  1. Move the existing peer review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1).
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing the primary page, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page).
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request (e.g. "Prior peer review here.").

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.

[edit] Related Items

If there are no article below, or you want more articles, see Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates#Sports for articles currently Good article candidates. You should not approve any article that you were involved heavily in editing or reviewing here, but you could help another article reach GA.

[edit] Requests

[edit] 2007 USC Trojans football team

I want to know what this article needs to minimum, be a B-class article, but I want it to become a Good article. Adsms (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Phydend

I've never done a peer review before, but I pretty much brought 2005 USC Trojans football team to GA, so I hope my comments can help. I think this is easily a B-class article and could pass GA with a few improvements.

  • Per WP:Lead, the lead needs to be expanded. It should be at least three paragraphs and needs to summarize everything in the article.
  • Not everyone understands all of the positions and rules of college football so all the positions mentioned should be linked the first time they are mentioned (I think that is done though) and perhaps there should be a {{seealso|}} link to American football rules, American football strategy, and American football positions (the positions one could be put in the Roster section).
  • All numbers of things should have a Non-breaking space following them (i.e. "10 former high school players" should be "10 former high school players") and things like scores and yardage should have Ndashes following them (i.e. "5-yards" should be "5–yards").
  • Per WP:Dates, all full dates (month and day, or month, day, and year) need to be linked so people with different date preferences set can see it their way. Even in the "accessdates" in the references.
  • All of the references should have "accessdates" ("Retrieved on" dates).
  • A couple of the references had dead links and these should be fixed.
  • The picture of Danelo needs to have a Fair Use Rationale for use on this page.

I think, depending on the reviewer, with an expanded lead and none of the other fixes, it might pass, but it's close to GA either way. I hope this helps and if anything that I said needs explaining just leave me a message. Phydend (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes... So soon! I was planning to bring this for review once I had a chance to go over it a few more times (I wrote 95% of the article). A lot of the ref links need to be converted to the LA Times archive (damn their paid archive, I added info when it was a "fresh" link and they break their links when they move to the archive). I will be happy to make all of the above changes. Actually, I envisioned this article having one last piece of data once we past the 2008 NFL Draft (a number of USC players are likely to be drafted from this senior class). --Bobak (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Sweetland

My goal is to get it to Good Article (I would be happy to move it from a Start to a B). I have put lot time into the article, but need to step away and have some new set of eyes take a look at it. Also, any ideas on additional images that would be added would be helpful. 09er (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Hawaii Bowl

I have added a lot of information to this article. I have used 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl as a template. My goal is to first get it to Good Article, than Featured Article listed. I will improve on both when help is listed. PGPirate 01:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a few comments:
  • There's a big problem with Image:Boise State offense in the 2007 Hawaii Bowl.jpg. The copyright information you've provided doesn't jive with the watermark given on the image itself. Wikipedia can't use copyrighted images. If the author gave permission for his image to be used, he's got to state as much and provide a non-watermarked image. This is a problem I ran into with 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, and if you can get an email from the photographer granting his permission to use that license on Wikipedia, and if you can get him to provide an unwatermarked image, we should be good.
  • Need some citations in the "Selection Process" section -- at least one per paragraph.
  • Try switching the headers to white text in the statistical summary tables. It's kind of difficult to read the black text against the blue and purple of the headers.
  • There's a few citation problems, mostly formatting issues. Be sure to provide the title, publisher, author, publishing date, and access date for websites. The Awful Announcing link, for example, needs to have all of these things, and I know they're available.
  • Be sure to upload your photographs on Wikimedia Commons as well -- that's something most Featured Article reviewers will suggest, and it makes them accessible to a lot of other searchers.
  • My main suggestion would be to add more citations. There's no real reason to have something that was publicized this widely rely on a single citation for 10 cites (ECU Media Guide).
  • Add indexing categories for the individual teams.
  • Copyedit for consistency. You refer to Conference USA as both CUSA and C-USA throughout the article. I'd recommend choosing one format and sticking with it.
  • In the team selection section, it might be helpful to give a brief overview of each team's season prior to the bowl selection. How did each team earn the right to be selected?
  • In the first paragraph of the game summary, try wikilinking the officials' positions rather than weblinking them. Weblinks in the middle of text are usually frowned upon as you start to move into Good and Featured Article territory.
All in all, it's a good article, and you've definitely come a long way with it in such a short time since the game. I'd say the photographs, team selection and statistical summary portions need the most work. The copyright issues with the photographs need to be worked out, the team selection section needs to go into a bit of detail about each team's 2007 season, and the statistical summary section really needs to have more citations. It's about as long as it should be, but you really need more citations from different sources -- newspapers saying that "such-and-such decided the game" are perfect but tough to find. I'd suggest recaps from local newspapers would do the trick -- check the Honolulu, Carolina, and Boise papers for good stories to cite. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Johntex

  • This is a very good article. I have added some thoughts to User_talk:PGPirate#new_FACs but I will copy them here in case anyone else is inspired to work on these or comment on them:

One of the first things I do when reviewing an article is to run the semi-automatic javascript program. It has the following suggestions for that article:

  1. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  2. Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  3. Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?] I fixed two captions. The script still complains but it is just complaining about the image in the infobox because the script does not recognize that it is in fact an infobox (see below).
  4. You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) - You can ignore this one because it just does not recognize the infobox because it does not start with the word "infobox".
  5. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 89 yards, use 89 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 89 yards.[?] - I fixed all of these.
  6. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  7. The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, couldn't, weren't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

I am going to work on some of the above and I'll list more suggestions here as I find them. I am going to number them so they will be easier to reference in case you want to discuss any of them here. Johntex\talk 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. I suggest added some links to articles that can help explain the game to a reader who is unfamiliar with the topic. In 2005 Texas Longhorn football team we handled this will See also links. (E.g. See also: American football positions and Glossary of American football) UPDATE: I see now you do have two links like that at the very bottom, but I tried to put them in the sections where I thought the reader might need them. I prefer that approach since I think it is more helpful.
  2. Per WP:LEDE the introduction of the article should only summarize facts found in the body of the article. In other words, there should be no fact found exclusively in the lead. However, the info about the attendance: "the attendance of 30,467 was the largest crowd to attend a Hawaiʻi Bowl game that didn't feature the host school." does not seem to be in the article. I'm not sure about the schools final records either.
  3. Several football-specific or football-centric terms do not seem to be explained or linked on their first usage. These include "first half", "first quarter" and "return" from the lead section. There are probably others. I would link them to the appropriate letter in Glossary of American football, for example "return" would become return. If the term is not in the glossary you can add it! I added several new terms along the way like that.

Johntex\talk 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early history of Minnesota Golden Gophers football

I would like to know what rating this article deserves right now and suggestions on what could improve it. Gopherguy | Talk 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I just glanced at it but since no one has replied yet I will give my first impressions:
  1. I think it is a good start and I applaud you for taking on the early history of a major team.
  2. I would consider re-titling the article. "early history" is vague and subjective. Can you cap it to a specific period instead?
  3. The lead sounds rather casual to me. I would try to strike a more formal tone. Phrases like "Once the sport had taken off, it was only a matter of time" may not be the best choice for an encyclopedia article.

Good luck with the article! Johntex\talk 05:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for checking it out!
  1. As you might guess, it's a "labor of love". I wanted to improve the coverage of the Gophers and this seemed a logical place to start since there was virtually nothing about it in Wikipedia.
  2. There is a similar page called Iowa Hawkeyes football from 1889 to 1897 out there, so there is some precedent. I debated how to name it and, along with suggestions from members of the College Football project, it has bounced between Minnesota Golden Gophers football before 1900, Birth of Minnesota Golden Gophers football and Early history of Minnesota Golden Gophers football. The "before 1900" one wasn't picked because 1900 sounds like an arbitrary cut-off date (it isn't - in fact, Henry L. Williams coached his first of 22 seasons in 1900, making that a logical stop date for this page). The current title won out because it is more in line with Wikipedia naming conventions than the "Birth" title. I'd be open to changing it again if it would make things more clear.
  3. I never did like the intro - I think after spending so much time writing the rest of the article, when it came time to put together the intro, I was kind of burned out. I'll definitely work on improving that - it should contain a high level discussion of the whole period including our membership in the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the Northwest and the creation of the Big Ten Conference.
Thanks for your suggestions! Gopherguy | Talk 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team

previous PR

[edit] 2007 Fiesta Bowl

Looking to get this article up to GA quality. Any tips would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ↔NMajdan•talk 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wafulz

  • The article is full of weasel words, and the writing does not hold the appropriate tone. For example: "Oklahoma was the designated home team and was favored by 7½ points, but in a classic battle, the Broncos won in overtime, 43-42" should be "Oklahoma was the designated home team and was favored by 7½ points, but the Broncos won in overtime, 43-42"
  • The majority of the third sentence is not needed. Just tell us relevant facts- we don't need to know everything about the Fiesta Bowl to find out who is playing. We have Fiesta Bowl for that.
  • The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD.
  • Avoid phrases like "many felt" and "some say". These are weasel words again.
  • Try to write it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a news feature.
  • Does the new stadium needs its own section?
  • "Game legacy" should be replaced with "Game summary." It should really be shorted- it's not supposed to be a full play-by-play
  • Rename the section "OT" to "Overtime". Non-sports fans may not understand what's going on.
  • Get rid of personal commentary like "She seemed surprised, but enthusiastically accepted". Just say she accepted.
  • Remove most of the "Instant classic" section. This is speculation and opinion, which is not allowed
  • "Final game facts" is not necessary. Redundant material should be removed, and other material should be merged into the rest of the article.
  • The "Reaction" section has too many quotes. Try and summarize opinions.
  • Image:TFB Logo Brand tag2.gif needs a fair use rationale.

This article has a ways to go before being a good article. Be sure to read the good article criteria.-Wafulz 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)