Talk:2005 Sugar Bowl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2005 Sugar 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 September 15, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 16, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
September 22, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
March 31, 2010Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
August 31, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Toolbox

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Sugar Bowl Logo.gif[edit]

File:Sugar Bowl Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 Sugar Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Well done.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    In the Post-game effects section, does Reference 65 cover this ---> "and several juniors elected to enter the 2005 NFL Draft as well"?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Not a problem, but if images can be found, they should be added.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to JKBrooks for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of interesting sources[edit]

I used the AP Poll for citing how USC/OU stayed at the top of the polls all season long, but if you want more, here are some credible sources about brewing problems for Auburn at the end of the season. --Bobak (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC review[edit]

I was asked on my talk page for my thoughts on this before it goes it FAC, and I will give a review similar to what you would see there:

  • "In the second quarter, another field goal resulted three points for the Tigers." Always watch out for missing words, just in case. :-) Another issue is the field goal; I think this should be mentioned by the first score. There are redundant earlys when in that sentence, so some work is needed there.
  • Virginia Tech: "the final game of their season that year" could be considered redundant due to "culminating with" preceding it.
  • "With late-season wins over perennial rival 16th ranked Virginia and fellow ACC newcomer ninth ranked Miami..." This could use a couple more commas for readibility.
  • Does the SEC Championship Game have its own article? If so, it wouldn't hurt to link it.
  • Pre-game buildup: The last two sentences of the first paragraph seem directly copied from the lead. A little variation would be nice.
  • Controversy: I'm a BCS-hater, so I will have a lot to say on this. First, please be careful with the title, because Controversy sections can be controversial themselves.
  • The last paragraph of the section is partially inaccurate and should be removed. The true tipping point was the Cal-Texas controversy, where Mack Brown successfully appealed to voters to move them up in the rankings after the team's final game, in effect gaming the system. The reference provided says as much.
  • "Some pundits and fans considered Auburn's slight to stem from..." I'm not sure this works grammatically, and slight is more than a little POV. This system forced three teams to vie for two spots; someone was always going to be left out.
  • "tougher conference schedule when compared to the conference schedules of USC and Oklahoma." Try "tougher conference schedule when compared to those of USC and Oklahoma."
  • Offensive matchups: Jason Campbell's first name doesn't need to be repeated with the running backs. Cedric Humes also doesn't need his first name twice.
  • Italics for the Roanoke Times, which could be The Roanoke Times. Why pipe a link if you don't need to?
  • Can this stubby paragraph about a Tech lineman be moved?
  • Perhaps link the 2000 Sugar Bowl?

I think that should be plenty for now. If/when this reaches FAC, I will definitely review it further. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[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) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[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) 02:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Sugar 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2005 Sugar 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Sugar_Bowl&oldid=1196473222"