Jump to content

Talk:2009 Orange Bowl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2009 Orange 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 April 21, 2012.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 11, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
September 22, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
March 31, 2010Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
August 31, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 20, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the first day of sales, the tickets sold by the Cincinnati Bearcats for the 2009 Orange Bowl netted an estimated US$500,000 for the University of Cincinnati?
Current status: Featured article
Toolbox

UC

[edit]

I'm working on writing a story for UC. Should be up within the hour. Lesserm (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinci and Virginia sections split to other articles?

[edit]

These sections seem to mostly be summing up each team's season leading up to the game; I think it would be more appropriate to put those sections in 2008 Cincinnati Bearcats football team and 2008 Virginia Tech Hokies football team, which are currently linked in with {{main}} but don't have much of a summary in them; the two summaries in this article would be more appropriate in those articles, leaving in this article just a paragraph (5 lines or so) for each, really quickly giving just a brief overview of what each team's season was like leading up to the game. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This style has been previously upheld in FAC reviews of past bowl-game articles. The only reason they're not longer is because we've got those main articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC review

[edit]
  • Should the "Champions" be capitalized in the second sentence? (2x)
  • Sometimes it takes someone pointing that out to see how stupid it looks ... I looked at that right before you suggested this and didn't think anything of it. Fixed.
  • "and an estimated total of 9.3 million viewers watched the game live." See those extra words that can be taken out?
  • "taking the game's opening possession down the field for a touchdown and a 7-0 lead in the first quarter." How does one take a possession down the field? Usually players take a ball down the field, even if that wording doesn't work in a featured article candidate. Should be re-worded.
  • Makes sense. It's been reworded.
  • "During the game's final quarter, Virginia Tech scored its second touchdown of the game, giving the Hokies a 20-7 lead that was the game's final score." Bunch of repetitive "game"s in this sentence.
  • Removed the first and third iterations.
  • "He set a Virginia Tech bowl-game record". Is the hyphen needed here?
  • Abbreviations needed after full usage for ACC and NFL.
  • Added.
  • Team selection: "with each bowl picking first in a different year." One of these awkward sentences using "with" that I see in almost every FAC.
  • I removed that clause, since it was redundant in any event.
  • "After Mauk's request was denied by the NCAA, the annual media poll of media covering Big East football still picked Cincinnati to finish fifth in the eight-team Big East." Still implies that his absence didn't make much difference in their prediction. Is that intended?
  • That's correct, but I'd need a citation to back that up, so I've removed "still."
  • "and was replaced by redshirt freshman Chazz Anderson, who also was injured during the game." Move "also" to after "was".
  • "Without Pike having returned to play quarterback" is an awkward bit.
  • Agreed. Reworded.
  • Very good catch!
That's the first part of the article. Planning to do more tomorrow. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Pike's first name.
  • Removed.
  • "Heading into their game against Syracuse Orange, Cincinnati was...". "their" → "its". The team name is singular, not plural.
  • Fixed.
  • Can't say I knew that article existed. Link added.
  • Pregame buildup: The BCS didn't exist in 1995, so should we be designating them retroactively?
  • Added a footnote indicating Bowl Alliance, rather than "official" BCS.
  • Two straight sentences start with "Also mentioned was the". That would be spotted instantly at FAC.
  • Broke that second sentence into two.
  • "with betting organizations favoring Cincinnati...". Noun plus ing again.
  • Reworded.
  • Ticket sales: "while Virginia Tech fans bought less than 5,000 tickets from the school's allotment of 17,500." Not thrilled about a sentence ending with a number. You could just remove the last two words, considering there's already a sentence saying what each team's ticket allotment was.
  • Reworded under suggestion by Maralia.
  • Cincinnati offense: "Among Cincinnati receivers, there was none of the uncertainty that had dominated the Bearcats' quarterbacks." Not sure about "dominated" here; how about "characterized" or similar?
  • How about "afflicted"?
Made it through Cincinnati defense. Prose is really getting better now. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC source check...

[edit]
  • It's a secondary citation, used because it explains things more clearly than the USA Today citation accompanying it. Since it's a blog, I didn't feel that it could stand on its own, but the information contained within is correct, as verified by the USA Today link.
  • I'm glad you made me check this, because it looks as if betting opened at Cincinnati by one, not two. Replaced with an offline newspaper source.
  • Current ref 52 (Kentucky Post staff) needs a last access date
  • Added.
  • Current ref 70 (King, Randy), newspaper title should be in italics
  • Done.
  • Same for current ref 99 (Keyes-Kulkarni)
  • Done.
Hope this helps Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC check

[edit]
  • Lead: "The 2009 FedEx Orange Bowl game was the 75th edition of the annual college football bowl game known as the Orange Bowl" -- This might just be me, but I dislike saying the same word or phrase in a sentence. I think from context it is clear that the 2009 Orange Bowl was an edition of the Orange Bowl.
  • I agree with you, but I needed to get a link to Orange Bowl early on in the article, and since you're not supposed to link the bolded title, I thought this was the best way. Do you have an alternative suggestion? I'm kinda stuck here.
  • First para, Team selection: "Bowl Championship Series (BCS) bowl games that have occurred at the conclusion of every college football season..." -- To me, an occurrence is usually something that happens by chance, not design. I think I'd prefer "have been held" or "played".
  • Changed to "have been played".
  • Same: "Cincinnati traveled to Norman, Oklahoma to face the Oklahoma Sooners for the first time in Cincinnati history" -- It was the first meeting for both teams.
  • Fixed.
  • Fourth para: dashes around "their home field". My understanding is dashes are used to give great emphasis, while commas are for normal emphasis, and parantheses are for subtle emphasis. Is this the intention here, though?
  • In this case, the dashes are used because there's already a clause set off by commas in that sentence. It gets a little dense if they're replaced by commas.
  • First para, Virginia Tech: "...and a season-ending loss to the Kansas Jayhawks in the 2008 Orange Bowl..." -- This is of course technically correct, but seems to me "season-ending loss" most often refers to a game that eliminates a team from playoffs or postseason consideration. I think the phrase could be dropped without losing anything.
  • Dropped.
  • "The final game of that four-game drop..." -- "Drop" sounds an odd word choice to me, but I'm not sure what would work better. "Stretch" maybe? Or possibly "The final/last of those four games..."
  • "Stretch" is a good choice.
  • "The final game of that four-game drop was a 16–13 loss to Coastal Division rival Miami, which then held a crucial tiebreaking win over the Hokies in the event of any head-to-head tie.[35]" -- The tie wouldn't be head-to-head, the tiebreaker would be. What about: "held a crucial tiebreaking win ... in the event of a tie for first place in the Division." Or something like that.
  • Reworded and removed "crucial", since that's a little NPOV.
  • Ticket sales: " Countering Virginia Tech's low direct ticket sales were large numbers of fans who avoided paying face value for tickets—US$125—by buying them on the secondary market, often for as little as 99 cents.[60]" -- The previous paragraph said "as low as $15 per ticket". Both could technically be true, but one is more accurate than the other.
  • Removed the "$15 per ticket" clause.
  • You use the term "all-Big East", without capitalization. Is this a mistake or for a reason?
  • Capitalized. Since it's the proper name for the team, they should be capitalized.
  • First quarter: "...the Bearcats executed the game's first play, a five-yard run by running back John Goebel. On the next play, the Bearcats earned the game's first first down..." -- Redundant word (in "first first down") can be eliminated (due to context) or replaced with "initial".
  • Oooh ... good word! I was beating my head against the wall trying to figure out how to reword that.
  • Fourth quarter: "the Hokies could shorten the game and preserve their lead by following this strategy..." -- Maybe it's just me, but "shorten the game" sounds odd. "Hasten the end of the game", perhaps?
  • Works for me. Reworded.
  • Notes: "While at Wake Forest, Mauk suffered a catastrophic injury..." -- This isn't clear that he originally played for WF, since "at" can also mean playing against. Perhaps, "When he played for Wake Forest..."
  • Reworded.

Otherwise, looks good. I didn't really see any deficiencies or confusing points in the game summary. I've watchlisted it and will support when it goes to FAC. Strikehold (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I've made some minor copyedit tweaks. Some specific issues:

  • "In exchange for appearing in the game, each team received $17.5 million, an amount that was shared with the other teams in each school's athletic conference" - The source cited for the first half of the sentence projects $17 million, and the second source projects 17.5. Can we get a source confirming the actual (not just projected) amount?
  • I've changed the relevant sentence and the infobox to state that figures vary. When I was trying to nail down this question, three different figures kept popping up: $17 million, $17.5 million, and $18 million. The official figure is $17.5 million, but I figured it's best to just let the reader decide.
  • "The Orange Bowl was thus left to select Big East Conference champion Cincinnati. By contract, the Big East Conference champion is guaranteed a spot in a BCS bowl, and the Orange Bowl committee could not have bypassed Cincinnati if it had wanted to." - "if it had wanted to" is extraneous, and I think these two sentences could be combined into one much simpler sentence.
  • I've collapsed those sentences into one. Take a look and see if you like it.
  • "Prior to the 2008 season, the Bearcats hoped quarterback Ben Mauk would be allowed to play an unusual sixth year of college football, a circumstance made possible by a year lost to injury and a redshirt year." - two problems: redshirt should be explained for dummies like me, and "circumstance made possible" doesn't seem quite right as it was ultimately disallowed.
  • I've rephrased the sentence, but isn't a wikilink enough for the term? If not, I think a footnote explanation would work, unless you disagree.
  • "The Bearcats opened the 2008 college football season against Eastern Kentucky, winning 40–7 in an offensive effort led by senior quarterback Dustin Grutza, who was named the team's starter at that position following Mauk's failure to win an extra year of collegiate eligibility." - "failure to win" seems needlessly negative.
  • Changed to "...following Mauk's dismissal."
  • "a 20–17 win that later gave Tech a crucial head-to-head tiebreaker against the Yellow Jackets" - I am hopelessly lost as to the meaning of this, and the later "The final game of that four-game drop was a 16–13 loss to Coastal Division rival Miami, which then held a crucial tiebreaking win over the Hokies in the event of any head-to-head tie."
  • I've rephrased that first section, but I'm not sure if it's any clearer.
  • "The loss was the start of a four-game skid for the Hokies that saw Tech lose three of four games" - a bit redundant, yes?
  • Potentially and possibly.
  • "Also mentioned was the fact that the two teams had faced each other in the 1947 Sun Bowl, which had been each school's first bowl game. Also mentioned was..." - repetitive (Also mentioned)
  • Reworded.
  • "Media covering Virginia Tech considered the rate of ticket sales to be slow, considering the Hokies had sold 50 percent more during a similar timeframe the previous year." - repetitive (considered, considering)
  • Reworked the second appearance.
  • "As late as December 31, neither team had sold its entire allotment of tickets. Cincinnati fans had bought 13,000 of the school's allotted 17,500 tickets, while Virginia Tech fans bought less than 5,000 tickets from the school's allotment of 17,500." - moving the 17,5000 figure to the first sentence here would avoid the need to mention it twice in the latter sentence.
  • Changed.
  • "In passing offense, the team was ranked 24th, having averaged 254.1 passing yards per game under five different quarterbacks who were pressed into service at various times during the season due to injury." - the point gets across, but this is rocky from a grammatical standpoint: the team didn't precisely average this under five different quarterbacks, and the latter part of the sentence is awfully wordy. Suggest "The team was ranked 24th in passing offense, with the five quarterbacks pressed into service during the season averaging 254.1 passing yards per game."
  • Changed.
  • "Starting linebacker Brett Warren, who had 86 tackles, with tackles for loss, two forced fumbles, and two interceptions during the regular season" - there's a missing figure here, for tackles for loss.
  • Added.
  • "This was followed by a five-yard run by Evans and a 23-yard pass from Taylor to tight end Greg Boone for a first down at the Tech 48-yard line. This was followed by a nine-yard pass" - repetition (This was followed by)
  • Reworded.
  • "In exchange for coaching the Hokies to an ACC Championship and an Orange Bowl championship, Virginia Tech coaches were given hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses." - surely not "in exchange for" but rather as a reward for?
  • Agreed. Reworded.
  • Are the links to the other 2009 bowl games in the See also section necessary, seeing as they're all linked in the first navigational footer?
  • I guess not. Removed.
  • Some consistency on Hokie/Hokies/Hokies' as an adjective would be appreciated—it's discordant to read things like Hokie offense, Hokies offense, and Hokies' offense all within the same text. (For what it's worth, the local newspapers botch this one all the time, too.)
  • Well, I've gone through this until my eyes crossed, then looked through it again until they crossed so much that they went back to normal. I think I've got them consistently as "Hokies/Hokies'", but a second look would be appreciated.

In general, this is well done. Most of the terminology is explained, and the prose is solid. The citations are in unusually good shape (and kudos for doing them without templates). The prose quibbles listed above should be easy fixes; hope to see this at FAC soon. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review and copy editing. It's often difficult to get editors to read through an article, and you've done as complete a job as I could've hoped for. In regards to citation templates, I hate them with a passion and refused to use them. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term 'redshirt' is used so extensively in the article that I feel it's worth offering a single-sentence explanation. Other than that, all my concerns have been resolved by your recent edits. Nice work! Maralia (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got it. I've put in a footnote explaining what a redshirt is ... I'm not sure if that's the best place for it, though. Do you think it'd be better as a parenthetical statement? If so, where would you recommend it be placed? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory I prefer to see an unfamiliar term defined in the actual text, but I don't see a good way to work it in here; a footnote is a good compromise. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[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) 18:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 Orange 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 Orange 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 Orange 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2009 Orange 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Orange_Bowl&oldid=1196548591"