Jump to content

Talk:Kick Six

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kick Bama Kick)

Just passing through and noticed...

[edit]

Would the passage in the opening sentence, "one of the most incredible college football games in NCAA history" qualify as peacock language?

Merely an observation... –RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 09:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


With a scrimmage from the Auburn 38 yard line, shouldn't the kick have come from the 45 (given the typical seven-yards-back setup), and hence been a 55-yarder rather than 57? Did the holder set up still deeper for some reason? Or was the ball actually spotted at the 40 after the review? WHPratt (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still no clarification on this apparent anomaly! WHPratt (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And still ...WHPratt (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


38 yard line or 40 yard line, what difference does it make? Well, if the kick went nine yards deep into the end zone, it was just a yard short of being non-returnable, which would be pretty important here. If the holder for the kick really set up two yards farther back than the normal 17 yards, those two yards might have made the difference. Even if two extra yards would still not have made the kick successful, they would at least have prevented a return when the ball went over the end line.

As we're always expressing the yard line as an integer, it’s a given that there’s a potential error of as much as half a yard in any such expression. I would expect the holder to pick a good spot on the grass, even at the sacrifice of some inches of closeness to the goalpost. So, we could accept a yard plus or minus in measuring the kick … but two yards is a tough sell. With some internet browsing, I found at least three rehashes that say the runner went out of bounds at the 39 yard line. A snap from the 39 and the placement at the 57 is reasonable.

There ought to be an official play-by-play somewhere. However, unless there’s a good source for the 38, I’d suggest that 39 is more likely true. Changing the 38 to 39 would avoid so red a flag to the reader as I perceived back in 2014.

https://flywareagle.com/2013/12/02/2013-iron-bowl-auburn-alabama-kick-bama-kickkick-six-game-made-sense Quoting the announcer: "... the ball’s at the 39-yard line."

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/lupica-auburn-alabama-talked-article-1.1533789 ...until he got to the Auburn 39-yard line.

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/sports/college/football/2018/11/22/iron-bowl-auburn-alabama-kick-six-chris-davis-rod-bramblett-eli-gold/2070946002/ ... he was shoved out of bounds at the Auburn 39.

Splitting hairs is what we do, but I’m going to cut it out as of now. Thank you for your patience. WHPratt (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Dravecky (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Bama Kick (2013 Iron Bowl game) → Kick Bama Kick – There is no need for disambiguation because no other article on Wikipedia is named "Kick Bama Kick" Jrcla2 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just going to submit this request myself. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also I'm going to remove the "unencyclopedic language" tag as it looks like the peacock language has been cleaned up. Volunteer Marek  18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's still some peacock language, "Unbelievably", "miraculous", "quickly seized", etc. I think it needs to be read through once more. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Dravecky (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo

[edit]

Any free photos out there of the field after the game with all the fans on it?  Volunteer Marek  00:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Isn't "Kick Six" the more common nickname? That's the only thing I've heard it called in the state of Alabama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.155.27 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Challenger Explosion, 9/11, and the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, I remember exactly where I was when I saw the end of the 2013 Iron Bowl. However, I never heard it called the "Kick Six" until I ran across this page. I understand that this name may be meaningful in Alabama, but there are plenty of Auburn (I suppose Alabama too, but why would I deign to recognize them?) fans who have never set foot in Alabama. I think that Kick Six (2013 Iron Bowl) would be the best name for this article and should satisfy everyone. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2014

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: already moved. Dekimasuよ! 07:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Bama Kick → Kick Six – "Kick Six" is a far more common name for this game. "Kick Six" has about 66,000 results on Google compared to 6,400 for "Kick Bama Kick". With the Iron Bowl today there's been significant coverage of this game almost all of it refers to the game as "Kick Six" (do a Google search for both terms and filter the results for the last week). Anecdotally, I've never heard the phrase "Kick Bama Kick" used in national media coverage. Mackensen (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 December 2015

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time. bd2412 T 15:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Six → 2013 Iron Bowl game – The term "kick six" has now come to refer to any missed or blocked FG returned for a touchdown (and sometimes even kickoff and punt returns), not just this specific one. The page should be moved to make room for (probably) a redirect to Field goal. Powers T 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Biblioworm 21:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support User:LtPowers yes that's convincing. In ictu oculi (talk)
  • Support Being that a "kick six" can refer to any field goal/punt/kickoff returned for a touchdown, it's usually in reference to a returned field goal. That being said I would support moving this article to either Kick Six (2013 Iron Bowl) or 2013 Iron Bowl. —  dainomite   18:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the original event, and all of the others are basically copycats that are more or less just referencing this one. If the phrase "Kick Six" should ever end up entering the lexicon and becoming as ubiquitous as, say, "Pick Six," we can revisit that discussion at a later date, as right now is simply too soon to make that determination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the recent examples I listed above explicitly reference this event. If this was a new or unusual usage, you would expect them to do so, so that readers understand the reference. Powers T 03:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without a primarytopic article to take its place, wouldn't this move introduce more confusion for the casual reader? Instead, perhaps a section of this article should be related to "other uses" and when that becomes big enough to merge out into a primary topic article, it can then be revisited. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as coincidence would have it, my wife was just watching a game and she referred to this occurrence as Kick Six not that it is a reliable source by any means. However, it would seem to support the commonname perspective. Although even with that said, I still think we actually need an actual page (Versus redirect) at Kick Six. So my comment above still stands. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kick Six. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked over these links after the first link proved dead, however the third is a replica of it and so I have changed the citation in-article. PsyMar (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game summary notes

[edit]

Pinging @Newtothisedit, here are my notes for the game summary section - these will cover general fixes and football-specific stuff:

First quarter

  • "On the game’s first play from scrimmage Alabama" -- add comma after "scrimmage"
  • "Alabama would then drive to the Auburn 26-yard line" -- change "would then drive" to "then drove"
  • "narrowly missed wide left" -- while there's technically nothing incorrect about this, it may come off as confusing to non-football fans; "narrowly" and "wide" seem to contradict each other. Even though I know what you mean, and "wide left" is a common football term, I would consider changing this to "narrowly missed to the left" or something similar to that.
  • "dropping a difficult deep pass" -- remove "difficult", could be construed as OR
  • "On the ensuing drive" is repeated in two sentences back-to-back near the end of the paragraph; I would consider swapping one of them

Second quarter

  • "The Tigers woes continued" -- "Tigers" needs an apostrophe after the "s" since it is possessive: "The Tigers' woes continued"
  • "continued on the following drive, losing 9 yards, going three and out and punting the ball back to the Tide" -- this sentence starts in past tense ("continued") and switches to present ("losing", "going", etc.)
  • "drive the length of the field with T.J. Yeldon scoring on a 1-yard rush" -- Yeldon's first name is given in the previous subsection so you don't need to repeat "T. J."
  • "at the half" -- for ease of comprehension for non-football fans, I would recommend switching this to "at halftime" with a piped link to Half-time

Third quarter

  • "downing the punt at the Alabama 1-yard line. After starting on their own 1-yard line" -- same info is given twice
  • My only major issue with this is that it is significantly shorter than the fourth quarter section (and the subsection for the final 32 seconds); I know it's a little harder to stretch a quarter with only a few drives in it, but were there any major plays in Q3 other than Uzomah's TD?

Fourth quarter

  • "two incomplete passes, and a false start penalty" -- comma is not needed
  • I could be wrong but I don't think "read option" needs a hyphen
  • "but was stuffed" -- a little jargon-y, I would be more literal about the fact that he did not gain the required yardage
  • "Despite it being a short field goal attempt" -- reader does not know what "it" means until they keep reading; I would introduce the idea of a FG attempt before you say that it would have been a short one but Saban didn't want to try it
  • "Yeldon was stuffed" -- same as above
  • "following a sack" -- link Quarterback sack
  • "two possession lead" -- "two-possession lead"
  • "Alabama went 3 and out" -- "three-and-out" is spelled out and hyphenated in the first quarter section
  • "before driving to the Alabama 39-yard line in six plays" -- this is worded a touch awkwardly, I would go with "and drove to the..."

Final 0:32

  • "before crossing the line of scrimmage" -- line of scrimmage is linked twice in this section so this instance can be unlinked
  • "Rather than take a knee and go to overtime" -- Quarterback kneel and Overtime (sports) should both be linked
  • "but before the kick, Auburn took a timeout" -- I would add, for context, "...Auburn took a timeout in an attempt to ice the kicker"
  • "Malzahn then put defensive back Chris Davis" -- Davis is mentioned earlier in this paragraph (pushing Yeldon out of bounds) so link (and maybe mention of his position) should be moved there
  • "With Alabama's field goal unit being made up mostly of" -- fix tense to say "Since Alabama's field goal unit was made up..."
  • "the speedy Davis" -- "speedy" is used in an earlier sentence, maybe eliminate this word

That's what I could find - overall very well-written, nice job! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Thanks for the suggestions. I have made the changes suggested with the exception of expanding the third quarter which I will do soon. Newtothisedit (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. -- ZooBlazertalk 02:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kick Six/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 01:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to do this review for you. I should be able to post my initial comments within a day or two after I fully go through the article. -- ZooBlazertalk 01:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • Are you able to add citations to the rankings in the infobox?
    • Done
  • Need to cite the rating in the infobox
    • Done
  • berth in the SEC Championship Game and, potentially, the National Championship game at stake - move the comma after "and" to after "Game"
    • Done
  • Alabama coach Nick Saban challenged the timekeeping call, and after a video review, one second was put back on the clock, and the Crimson Tide lined up for a potential game-winning 57-yard field goal - This should probably be split into two sentences with the second one combining with The kick was short, and Auburn's Chris Davis, who had been positioned near the goal line, caught the ball just in front of the goal posts. - Maybe turn it into something like Alabama coach Nick Saban challenged the timekeeping call and one second was put back on the clock after a video review. The Crimson Tide lined up for a potential game-winning 57-yard field goal and the kick was short, allowing Auburn's Chris Davis, who had been positioned near the goal line, to catch the ball just in front of the goal posts.
    • Done

Background

[edit]
  • Iron Bowl can be linked at the end of the first paragraph
    • Done
  • The end of that paragraph has citation overkill. Maybe remove a couple or spread them out if possible.
    • Done
  • Is it possible to expand on the first paragraph so it's not so short? Or combine parts of later paragraphs?
  • Done
  • SEC champions can be linked in paragraph two
    • Done
  • against the Georgia Bulldogs and went on to soundly defeat - A reader shouldn't have to click a link to learn what it is linking to like is currently being done with "soundly defeat". You can move the link to their second consecutive national title or just reword it entirely
    • Done
  • their third in four years - add "and" before their
    • Done
  • Same issue as above. "Their own" links to the 2010 Auburn team, but people can only guess based on the wording
    • Done
  • two years after their own National Championship victory, the Auburn Tigers - Auburn Tigers can be linked
    • Done
  • 2012 Iron Bowl–their second consecutive blowout loss in the Iron Bowl - No need to mention Iron Bowl twice that close together. Maybe change the second mention to "the game" or "the rivalry/rivalry game"
    • Done
  • Alabama entered the 2013 season ranked #1 and remained at the top of the polls for the entire season, rolling through their schedule with relative ease, winning all but one of their games (Texas A&M) by more than 10 points. - needs a source, as does the next sentence regarding Auburn's season being defined by come from behind wins
    • Done
  • pass known as the "Prayer at Jordan–Hare" Just a minor detail, but the ref you use calls it Prayer in Jordan–Hare
    • Done
  • It was also the first Iron Bowl in which both teams were playing for a berth to the SEC Championship. Alabama was also - maybe a slight reword so you're not using "was" in back to back sentences.
    • Done
  • "broadcast live from outside Jordan–Hare Stadium" - the stadium can be linked
    • Done
  • ...as well as Paul Finebaum, unanimously picked Alabama to win the game - you have citation overkill again. Maybe try to cut it down to 3-4 refs if possible if they can't be spread out
    • Done

Second quarter

[edit]
  • with a 11-play, 67-yard --> an 11 play
    • Done
  • The Tiger's woes continued on the following drive, losing 9 yards, going three and out and punting - maybe put a comma after "out"
    • Done
  • sparking a 81-yard --> an 81
    • Done

Third quarter

[edit]
  • but Cooper dropped the would-be touchdown. Following the dropped would-be touchdown - you can probably just say "following the drop" in the second sentence
    • Done
  • "quarter came to the a close" - remove the
    • Done

Fourth quarter

[edit]
  • "next drive deep in their own territory and, following" - move the comma to after "territory"
    • Done
  • "2:41 left in the game, and trailing 28–21, and drove to the Alabama" - rewrite so you're not repeatedly saying "and"
    • Done

Final 32 seconds

[edit]
  • "Adam Griffith taking the kick instead of the struggling Foster, but before the kick" --> you can probably start a new sentence after Foster.
    • Done
  • Since Alabama's field goal unit being made up mostly of offensive linemen, --> Maybe change "since" to something like "due to" or "as a result of"
    • Done
  • Bramblett's call of the final play is considered one of the greatest announcer calls in recent sports history - you have citation overkill here technically, but because of what's being cited, can you maybe cut one? 4 seems to be the max from my experiences.
    • Done

Naming the game

[edit]
  • "used by most media outlets, Auburn, and the NCAA to refer to both the play and the game" - Cut a ref or 2 if possible
    • Done

Images

[edit]

All images appear to be properly licensed.

References

[edit]

I still need to do ref checks, but I'll wait until after you make some of the changes. However, just some quick things to note:

  • I recommend adding archives to all refs where possible. Probably want to use the bot so you don't have to do it one by one.
    • Done
  • Ref #45 needs expanded
    • Done
  • Earwig found no big issues. The only refs that turned up a decently high match were the quotes for the call, which are sourced.
  • Ref numbers are accurate as of this edit:
    • Ref #10: Nielsen rating for the vane was an 8.2 -  Confirmed
    • Ref #15: The football programs representing the University of Alabama and Auburn University first met in 1893 -  Confirmed
    • Refs #32 and #33: Two weeks before the Iron Bowl, No. 7 Auburn defeated rival Georgia with a tipped Hail Mary pass known as the "Prayer at Jordan–Hare", setting the stage for a highly ranked Iron Bowl matchup -  Confirmed Both refs use the nickname for the pass
    • Ref #43: It was the Tigers' first offensive touchdown against Alabama since 2010 -  Confirmed
    • Refs #54 and #57: Two different announcer calls for the Kick Six -  Confirmed

Comments

[edit]

Overall the article looks really good and most of the issues I found are pretty minor. I remember watching this game and I can't believe it's been almost 10 years already. -- ZooBlazertalk 17:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer Thanks for the review! I currently have some real world stuff on my plate, and it will probably be 1-2 weeks before I am able to address the comments. I appreciate the feedback and will make the necessary changes as soon as I have the time. Newtothisedit (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newtothisedit No rush. I have this page on my watchlist, but tag me again when you're back working on the article just in case I miss it. -- ZooBlazertalk 02:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer I believe that I have addressed everything. Newtothisedit (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newtothisedit Everything looks good. I'm gonna promote the article to GA. Congrats! -- ZooBlazertalk 02:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kick_Six&oldid=1201181061"