Talk:2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team

2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 1, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
December 17, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 18, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by OU Task-force (assessed as Low-importance).

College football High‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article creation

Article created. I'm looking up info and sources to flesh out the other sections. Z4ns4tsu 20:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule Table

I have a few issues with the way the table is laid out now (which is why it looked different when I put it up in the first place from 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team). First, I do not think it is necessary to number every game. There are only twelve in a season plus the conference championship so I don't think it is too much to count. Second, I don't like listing whether the game is conference or non-conference in that section either. All the conference teams are listed at the bottom of the page, it takes up way too much space (disturbing the ballance of the table, and makes it display funky at smaller resolutions. The format from the Buff's page also has way to many wikilinks to the conference (I went ahead and removed those, but left the rest of it until it is discussed). Hopefully, we can iron these issues out and decide on a standard format for this type of page soon. C&C always welcome. Z4ns4tsu 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I agree with you on both issues. I just kept the original format in place since thats what they had. Feel free to remove the game number and conf/nonconf info. I like having the results column and we will add a different color to the rows for win/loss as the season progresses the same way 2005 Colorado Buffaloes football team does. If I have time, I may make that change real quick. Thanks for creating this page. I typed out a bunch or stuff without checking to see if this page existed yet then I came here to create the page and here it was. --NMajdan•talk 00:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team without much thought, through I do recall not liking the table as I was copying it. Buffaloes is spelled with an E in there too. I do think there should be some kind of way to indicate a conference game, as a casual fan or non-fan wouldn't know such information (and they may do what is a conference? and go learn more). I do like the way the green (##ddffdd) and red (#ffdddd) and yellow (#ffffdd) colors work on the table and was planning to propose that the College Football Project adopt those colors universally. Mecu 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a guide for future articles, the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article is probably a better template - though there is not much difference in this particular table. I like the idea of indicating which games are conference games and which are not. We don't necessarily need to spell out "conference" or "non-conference" in each row. Most teams will have all their non-conference games up-front, so one way to do this would be to make a sub-heading in the table to denote when the season switches to conference play. A flaw in this would be if a non-conference game gets rescheduled to the end of the year because of a hurricane or something. Another option would be to use a symbol or abbreviation and define it below the table to lessen the clutter in the table itself. Johntex\^talk 01:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing just that. Adding C for conference game or NC for non-conference game somewhere in one of the fields. I also like the ranking column in the Texas table, as it is especially useful for those teams that will dominate the season polls. I may take a closer look at these things tomorrow.--NMajdan•talk 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the colors are nice. I was also thinking that the easiest solution would be to have another column that listed if the game was conf/non-conf as there are a lot of teams in the Big East and ACC that have late-season non-conf games (esp with the mixups between those two conferences recently). I like the idea of a ranking column, but should it be the ranking when the teams played or the ranking for the current week? I've never really been able to figure out which way the BCS or the sports casters do it. Z4ns4tsu 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the ranking when they played the game. Should also have another category that lists the opponents rank, or maybe as part of the Opponent's Name like they do on newspapers like: @ #20 Colorado where Colorado would be linked, but not the 20 or #. Which bring another question. Should we list the AP/BCS/USAToday polls (which the numbers could then be linked to for each week?) for each week as part of the list of games that maybe we do for each week? Look at the Talk:2006 NCAA Division I-A football season and my comment there which needs discussion too.

Ok, I updated it again. I added a ranking column for OU's ranking through the season. I'll add opponent's rankings similar to the way the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team did it: @ #6 Ohio State. I used superscripts for the conf/non-conf matchups because I figured it would save space as opposed to creating a whole new column. Let me know what you think.--NMajdan•talk 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've only got the AP Poll there. I think we should go with either both polls (coaches and AP) or the BCS rankings (after they're released). It's also a bit presumptious to have the Big12 championship game listed on OU schedule already. =) TheMile 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the AP poll because thats what other pages have used. I'll probably use BCS polls once they are released. And having the Big 12 Champ game on there is normal. If you go to http://soonersports.com and look at the schedule, it is on there and it is on the print schedule the athletic dept makes as well.--NMajdan•talk 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conference championship games are typically added to the schedule of every team in a conference. Z4ns4tsu 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I'm a Big10 guy. TheMile 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support using both major polls (AP and Coaches) with BCS being added as a third poll or replacing the other two polls when it comes out. Unfortunately, this leads to some redundancy since they are often in agreement.

If we use only one poll, it should not be the AP since that poll (while perhaps the most respected) no longer has any official bearing on what teams play for the championship. The coaches poll would be a better pick.

I agree it is normal (even if presumptious) to list the championship game for schools that may play one. We need to do so consistently though, even for Baylor. Johntex\^talk 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'll be having a team season page for Baylor. Ok, I can switch to Coaches since AP did say that the BCS cannot use their poll this season. But I also disagree with using more than one. I may start with Coaches and then switch to BCS when it comes out.--NMajdan•talk 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the schedule might look less cluttered if we left off the footnote for conference games, since they're the majority. TheMile 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that when I redid the table but decided against it. There was no real reason for my decision. I'll remove them and see what kind of response we get.--NMajdan•talk 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting very close to something extreemely usefull. Thanks for all the ideas, suggestions, and mark-up folks. I just looked at the changes NMajdan made, and while it looks better, what about marking the non-conf games in the date field the way homecomming and the conf championship games are? Maybe a double-dagger, or use the asterisk and put the double-dagger on the champ game? I'll play arround with it. Z4ns4tsu 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone needs to re-edit this page... looks like someone had a little fun.

Logo

I have restored the OU logo at the top of this article. This article is clearly about the Oklahoma Sooners and therefore the image is allowed under fair use. Johntex\^talk 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my reading of WP:FUC as well. As I see it, the use of both logos falls under critera #8. Z4ns4tsu 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue behind the use of these logos has been pushed to mediation. The edit/revert war should cease until such time as the issue has been resolved. Please do not remove these logos again until the mediation has concluded. Z4ns4tsu 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an image to identify UAB. It's usage is entirely decorative. The article is not about UAB, so the logo has no relevance here. ed g2s • talk 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a logo to identify Oklahoma Sooners either. The article isn't about UAB, but that section is. The logo illustrates that section which is allowed under fair use rules. Why is it so hard for you to wait until we get a mediator's opinion on this?--NMajdan•talk 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation will have no bearing on our policy. The logo of the Sooners is of historical significance to the team, which the article is about. The article is not about UAB, the logo does not illustrate any specific points in the text. The team is mentioned because it played Oklahoma, their logo is not relevant to that discussion. ed g2s • talk 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I feel this is your interpretation of the policy. I believe rule #8 to mean that since UAB is the focus of that section that the use of a fair use image is warranted.--NMajdan•talk 15:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nmajdan. If, as your edit summary says, this was a clear violation of policy, we would not be having this discussion. In addition, if mediation will have no bearing on your interpretation of fair use policy and you already refuse to abide by their decision, then the entire exercise is mostly worthless. I still think we should continue, and I will support the process and the decision reached. Maybe you should try doing the same. Z4ns4tsu 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article about UAB. This image is purely decorative, as there is no critical analysis, and this article is no less informative without this image. Edit warring aside, ed is right on this one, and the decorative image has to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is currently under mediation so I please ask that you leave the article alone until the mediator renders a decision. The section in question does contain a critical commentary on UAB and thus an image is allowed as per my interpretation of the fair use criteria.--NMajdan•talk 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert good-faith edits with popups. Ever. Also, if you're going to refer to a case ongoing, please link it; there's nothing in whatlinkshere or on this talk page or on WP:RFM.

How is this article more informative for including that logo? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the discussion is here.--NMajdan•talk 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Interesting. I don't think freezing articles with questionable fair-use images just because there's an open Medcab case that doesn't even have an assigned mediator yet is appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the use of the logo is at all problematic.

Some people are more visually oriented than others. The logos are informative to the reader and they occur alongside discussion of the teams they represnt.

It is common practice to use both teams' logos when discussing a contest between the two teams (E.g. Sports Illustrated[1] and ESPN[2] and university websites such as this one).

We have numerous articles where we use logos to represent a company or sports team or sports event discussed in the article (IBM Nebraska Cornhuskers, NASCAR, etc.)

The use of team logos can occur wherever discussion of those teams is taking place. What we happen to have chosen as the title of the article is irrelevant. The use of the logos can occur wherever the discussion occurs, regardless of the name of the article.

For example, using the logos to illustrate a contest between the two teams such as a rivalry between two teams is a perfectly valid fair use justification. (Eg. Bedlam Series) as shown in this version or Red River Shootout)

The same thing applies when the article discusses multiple games, such as those occurring over the course of a team's season. For example, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team contains a description of each game the Longhorns played that year. The logos of the teams they were playing are fair use alongside each game played. Before Ed removed the images, the article appeared like this. He removed the images despite previous discussion on the article's talk page.

Our policy says that fair use images are allowed when they contribute to the article and when no free alternative is available. By definition, no free alternatives are available for logos. The images are useful, and they should be kept. Johntex\^talk 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our fair-use policy also says that fair-use imaes are only allowed when absolutely necessary. These logos aren't absolutely necessary (no understanding is lost when they are removed) and they're fair-use images, so they need to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we err on the side of safety until BradPatrick (talk · contribs) comments on this issue. Once the essential legal issue is taken care of, we can talk about style and such usefully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"By definition, no free alternatives are available for logos.", no but the article isn't about the logo. Our policy is "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." the information in this context is identifying the team, so the text of the team is adequate. The logo, whilst pretty and mildly useful, is not relevant information to this article. ed g2s • talk 14:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Our articles on a single team are not about the logo, yet the logo is usable. Our article about IBM is not about the IBM logo, yet the logo is usable. As long as the team/company/concept represented by the logo is being discussed, then the logo can be used. Johntex\^talk 16:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, it is not our policy. This logo is of historical signficiance to the team, so on an article about the team, it is relevant. The logo is not of any particular relevance to one match that team played, and so does not add significantly to the critical commentary of the article. ed g2s • talk 17:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your assertion. I am correctly stating policy. You are over-reaching in your attempt to make our policy needlessly draconian. Johntex\^talk 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy clarification with respect to logos

There has recently been some disagreement on what the intent of the policy is with respect to use of sports team logos. I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorization of Schedule

The original table we discussed basing the colors off of is the one at 2005 Colorado Buffaloes football team. My only problem with using those colors was that if a team won two weeks in a row, you lost the color contrast between the rows of the table. The original colors were:

	#ddffdd for a win
	#ffdddd for a loss
	#ffffdd for a championship/bowl game

So I took a look at the numbers on the tables and worked out some changes. Some things to note:

The base background color for a wikitable is #f9f9f9 or RGB(249,249,249)
The background color for the "dark" rows is #e3e3e3 or RGB(227,227,227)
That means that "dark" rows are 22 points more black (~8.5%) than the base
When darkening colors, if it is a primary (red, green, or blue), you leave that component alone and change the others equally. If not, like for the yellow, leave the two primaries that make the base color and change the other one.

That leads to table colors like these:

	#ddffdd for a win on a base row
	#c7ffc7 for a win on a dark row
	#ffdddd for a loss on a base row
	#ffc7c7 for a loss on a dark row
	#ffffdd for a championship/bowl on a base row
	#ffffc7 for a championship/bowl on a dark row

And that's what I am planning on using for this page.

I think it looks fine since it has a grid-line separating the rows. I see nothing wrong with having the same color in multiple rows. We'll go a few more weeks and we'll see how your suggestion looks when it is actually applied before we make our final decision.--NMajdan•talk 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you. I think the other color scheme is just too much to worry about. nm, then. z4ns4tsu\^talk 17:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of Statistics

I just made some order changes on the tables that I personally think we should try to keep up with. I find that it makes looking through a list of stats (especially long ones like defense) much more easy when they are sorted by some definate and important statistic. So I went through and re-arranged the stats. For ofense I ordered by total yards then last name on ties (there weren't any this time). For defense I used total tackles then last name on ties. If we keep up with this each week as we adjust the stats, I think we'll be more pleased with the final product. Keep up the good work, guys! z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reordering is fine, I would've done it but by the time I had updated the actual statistics I was too lazy to reorder. I'll try to keep the order correct from here on out. One thing I very much disagree with is your dropping of total attendence and leaving average attendence. I think total should be kept with average below it, as it was. If you don't mind, I may change this back if you do not.--NMajdan•talk 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see total attendance over the course of the season as necessary, but I don't have a real problem with it being included. The main reason I removed it was for aesthetics; the "/" format did not really "look good" to me. We can put it back and I'll play with the format and see if I can find a way to present it that I like (if not, I'll live with it, don't worry). Also, don't worry about making sure to keep the tables in order, becasue I can do it after the stats have been updated. I was mainly making sure that this was a logical ordering sequence to you and the other editors. z4ns4tsu\^talk 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

I updated the statistics as of 9/26. As you can see, I made some small changes. First off, the biggest change is I have limited the defensive stats to the 5 leaders by number of tackles. Updating the defensive stats for 20 players can be a little overwhelming and most people only care about the leaders anyway. I noticed somebody added some rankings to the first section and I changed the reference and expanded that to several other categories. I have placed the link to the resource at the end of the Statistics section. I used a link to the official NCAA statistics website as I feel that to be the most official and thus best for an encyclopedia. I tried to include the rankings when Oklahoma was ranked higher than #25. I believe that is all the changes I made. As always, please double check my changes for accuracy. Good to see the page was more than kept up with while I was away.--NMajdan•talk 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look pretty good. I've been thinking about the rankning since I added them a few weeks ago, and I think I'm going to switch from rankings in the "total" category to the "per game" category. That seems to fit better with how the larger media organizations do them and it really makes more sense to me as well. I'm glad you found a more official source than ESPN, too. I didn't even know that the NCAA made those records public. z4ns4tsu\^talk 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right on the per game stats of the ones you changed. Those were already there and I just updated the rankings and didn't move them. Thanks for that.--NMajdan•talk 01:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I limited the defensive rankings to the top five earlier in the season. This saves A LOT of data entry following the games. However, I think that at the end of the season, we should go ahead and update the rankings to include ALL defensive contributors. We'll definitely need to make a push for this to be a GA after the season concludes. Great job, z4ns4tsu, on the post-game summaries.--NMajdan•talk 18:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll on Red River Shootout image

After scowering Flick, I found a good photo of this year's Red River Shooutout and I convinced the photographer to change the license to a free license. It is of the Cotton bowl from the Texas State Fair ferris wheel and if you look at the image full size, you can see the Burnt Orange / Crimson and Cream split at the 50 yard-line. There are two versions now on commons, the original and one where I drew in a yellow arrow to mark the 50. I put the first on the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team and the other on Red River Shootout. I propose a straw poll to determine if editors would like one of them on this page. Johntex\^talk 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original image

Image with the yellow arrow

Neither / Other

With 3 votes for the original including Nmajdan and Z4ns4tsu (the two most active editors here, I think), I've stuck in the original image. Feel free to move, change caption, etc. Johntex\^talk 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Key Award

Anyone know what this recognizes or if there is any literature about it? I wanted to write up an article for it, but couldn't find anything on the athletic department's page about it. At the very least, I'd like to put a note in the TT section about it. z4ns4tsu\^talk 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I looked around and there isn't much out there about it. I'll link some articles I found:

Basically, all the Google results are repetitive, but you get the gist.--NMajdan•talk 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades and notes

This section is more of a place to keep accolades and awards to serve as a notes section to use when created the Postseason section on the main article.

Stoops named AP Big 12 Coach of the Year.--NMajdan•talk 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Alexander named Big 12 Defensive PoY.--NMajdan•talk 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA Status?

Now that the season is almost over, and looking at the page as it stands, I think we should shoot for FA status with this one. We definitely have enough references and sources, after the bowl games are over the page will probably be stable until the NFL draft, and we have a lot of prose with no lists and only a few tables. I think with only a little work re-wording some of the game sections for flow and grammar we could fly through a FA nomination. What do you think? What else do you think needs to be improved? Can we get any more pictures (that's about the only thing I think the page is lacking)? z4ns4tsu\^talk 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, definitely GA for starters. I have the Peer Review script and I can run that on the page for suggestions but I'm a proponent of getting an article GA before FA. Also, lets follow the progress of the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team article as Johntex hopes to get that FA as well. We can observe their feedback as they can observe ours. But yeah, this article is at least GA quality if not FA. We'll see. There's still a month left in the season.--NMajdan•talk 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.^[1]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, last year

, soon , and previous [day/week/month/year]

might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[2]

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 183 yards, use 183 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 183 yards.^[3]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[4] Specifically, an example is LB.
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[5]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[6]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
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. }

} } } } } ^[7] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NMajdan•talk 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to get this article to FA status. I would love to help if I can. As Nmajdan says, we are hoping to get 2006 Texas Longhorn football team to FA status. Since this season is still going, I am thinking a good strategy would be to try first with 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. One reason for this is that the 2005 season is already over so there is no reason for our coverage to be considered incomplete or premature. Secondly, even though "notability" is not an official factor for FA, I just have a feeling that the process may go a little more smoothly with a national championship team. Thirdly, we already have a failed GA reveiew for the 2005 UT page which we can use to improve the article to GA or FA status. One problem with going for GA prior to FA is that there seems to periodically be discussion about whether or not GA is suitable for longer articles. Some people seem to think that longer articles should go straight to FA. Therefore, I am not sure which approach is better in that regard. Johntex\^talk 17:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that reluctance to award GA for longer articles as well. That's why I was thinking of skipping it and going straight to FA for this one. I agree, as well, that we'd probably have an easier time with the 2005 UT article right now. I'll head over there and see what I can do for grammar and flow in the next few days. z4ns4tsu\^talk 18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working through the 2005 UT football article over the last few days. If all goes well, by the end of this week-end I will ask for comments from the WP:CFB and the WP:UT. Then I plan to submit to FA. Johntex\^talk 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote

Tense?

The "Preseason" and "Roster" sections were written in the tense that correlates to the time the articles were written, before the season. Should these be updated to past tense after the season concludes or is it acceptable to leave them in their current tense?--NMajdan•talk 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that they should be changed to past tense. That's a lot of work, but some of the sections need to be re-worded anyway. z4ns4tsu\^talk 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think they should be changed to the past tense. I'd saw the pre-season section can be converted at any time. For the roster, that could be done now but would be better after the end of the season. Johntex\^talk 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated PR

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

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.^[?]
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
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 99 yards, use 99 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 99 yards.^[?]
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): isn't.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
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 15:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article (GA) review

This article contains some really good information and is interesting to read. There's a few issues, however, that prevent me from passing it for GA at this time:

Contains some POV phrases, for example:
- Y"Heisman hopeful Adrian Peterson did not disappoint either."
- Y"the Sooners returned to form in 2006"
- Y"Oklahoma's stars, on the other hand, shone"
  - Issues above have been addressed.↔NMajdan•talk 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, someone reading the article isn't supposed to be able to tell what side the article's author is on, in this case whether the author cares or not if the Oklahoma team was any good or not that season.

YIt isn't explained what happened after Oregon recovered the onside kick. How did they make the winning score?
YWikify all dates.
Not every paragraph is cited.
Some sentences are in past tense and some in present tense. Everything should be in the past tense or past progressive tense. (is->was, has->had, is going->was going)
YThe stats boxes should go after the "Season notes" section unless the established format for these types of articles is to do it this way.
YThe picture in the University of Texas game section should go on the left side to eliminate white space.

Please make the corrections or comment within five days. You can answer or ask me questions here on the talk page or on my user talk page. Then I'll come back and re-review the article. Nice work so far. CLA 07:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the above issues, but others will take more time (like adding citations, checking all the tenses, etc). Thanks for the review.↔NMajdan•talk 13:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a few more days for the corrections. When finished, please leave a note here or on my talk page. CLA 05:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article now meets GA criteria and I've promoted it. Congratulations and keep up the good work! CLA 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

There are some dead links for attention, identified here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.↔NMajdan•talk 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hey, I'm reassessing this article for GA sweeps. The article is nicely written, though due to a couple issues falls below GA standards:

Make sure all citation needed sentences are remedied.
The following refs are dead links and need to be fixed: Refs #9, 42, 43, 53, 82, 86, 114, and 120.

After this stuff is fixed I'll pass it as ok, but if not I'll delist it. I'll give you five days to make good progress. Wizardman 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: 9, 42, 43, 53, 82, 86 Unfortunately, now the numbering is off. I really wished User:WebCiteBOT could run on-demand. I'll work on these as I have time.—NMajdan•talk 21:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alrghty, once the cite neededs are fixed and Ref now #112 (Vertuno, Jim (November 24, 2007). "Longhorns fall to Aggies, 7-12". MackBrown-TexasFootball.com) is replaced (tried to fix but couldn't) then we're set. Wizardman 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 112 fixed. Will work on the missing citations now.—NMajdan•talk 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I resolved the three citation needed tags. I added on ref to get rid of one. I removed some NPOV wording (Thompson had several talented wide receivers -> Thompson had several wide receivers) that I believe allowed me to remove the tag as now I am merely stating some wide receivers which should be covered under the roster ref. Finally, the last citation needed tag was for the last sentence, which is covered in the ref right before it.—NMajdan•talk 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; article kept. Wizardman 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]