Wikipedia:Peer review/Fifth Down Game (1990)/archive1

Fifth Down

Seeking to get to GA status. Any comments or suggestions are appreciated, thank you. --MECU≈talk 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would mention in the opening that this was in a college, not pro, football game. Also, it should be mentioned that Colorado could have gotten the touchdown legitimately on 4th down if they had run a play instead of spiking the ball, thus possibly winning outright. Jacob1207 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed one of the duplicate American football links to college football in the intro, so it should definitely be clear now. Also, I've tried to explain as you mentioned that he would have just gone for it on 4th down instead of spiking it, but it sounds a little guessing or prediction and less encyclopedic. But I appreciate your comments and time. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Citations should use the <ref> tags, and external links should be a ==level 2== heading, not ===level 3===. Laïka 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Changes made. --MECU≈talk 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• The cites should not just be a link, but show information on what page is being linked, who published it, who wrote it, etc. (see Template:Cite. More references are needed, sentences like "Observers favoring Colorado for the national championship noted that they had played a more difficult schedule than Georgia Tech" can't be included unless verified. The sentence beginning "Had the officiation crew..." is borderline original research - try to find someone who has speculated this and cite them, otherwise it's just your opinion of what might've happened. And the article lacks any images which I assume will be needed for GA (I'm not au fait with the criteria). Trebor 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I will work more on the cites and try to find more references. A (free) image would be very difficult to obtain since this was before digital cameras and the internet boom. Might be in some historical places like a library or newspaper or I could try to contact Colorado/Missouri and obtain something, but this is going to be a long time coming to produce anything. Thank you for your time and comments. --MECU≈talk 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• My opinions: Clean up the references, we should be able to see what we are looking at. "Top Moment" is not synonymous with "Memorable Moment." "which they scored" consider "which they used to score." What were the Buffs ranked at the time? What about Missouri? Were they both ranked teams? "changed hands" is a colloquialism, I'm not sure I like it. "Had the officiation crew had the right down displayed, he might have kept the ball, instead of spiking – which no one would do on fourth down, and scored the touchdown on the real fourth down."---Speculation, this needs to be removed or cited. "(The rules have since changed not requiring the extra point try if time has expired and the result will not affect the outcome of the game)."---make into a footnote and cite. "Oddly, McCartney did not make the more compelling argument that Colorado had not truly benefited from a "fifth down", since Johnson would most likely not have spiked the ball on what the officials were calling third down had it been correctly designated as fourth down." --- as is this is POV, you should quote somebody saying that. "(However, see the 1940 precedent for a different perspective on a possible forfeit.)" Talk about it here or make this into a footnote. I would have liked to see the section under "National Championship" moved up closer to the top. Give me the background to understand the signficance of the play.Balloonman 09:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I've covered all your suggestions. I did leave the National Championship section where it was since it doesn't seem to really affect the game itself, but more part of the aftermath of the event. However, I did try to build up the game a little as you suggested, and in the intro it mentions that it affected the national championship for Colorado. Also, I just put a {{fact}} for the "Oddly,..." remark and will look for a cite. I believe this one line covers the argument that he wouldn't have spiked it on forth down so I removed that line and once a cite is found for that one it'll be okay (I'll start looking shortly). Thanks for your time. --MECU≈talk 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)