The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:07, 23 December 2008 [1].

---

2006 Gator Bowl[edit]

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

Hello, all. This is another article for the Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games featured topic in-progress. It's been passed through the GA review process, I've checked it for dead links via the tool provided, and it follows an established FA style featured in previous articles such as 2000 Sugar Bowl and 2008 Orange Bowl. The only thing this article lacks is pictures, but the aforementioned 2000 Sugar Bowl article also lacked pictures and didn't have any problems passing FAC. I'll continue to look for some, and if I'm able to find any (or if you can suggest some), I'll be sure to add them. Feel free to contact me with any comments, questions, or concerns, and I look forward to earning your support by addressing any items you care to bring to my attention. Thanks for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• Double check that all your newspaper titles are in italics. I noticed current ref 28 (Bowl season brings 28 games...) where USA Today isn't in italics, likewise current ref 36 (Hokies will get a shot...)

• Fixed those two.

• It's not something you HAVE to change, but any reason you put the authors after the titles? It's .. odd.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dang, that is darn strange. I don't think I've ever done that before while writing an article. All the other FAs I've contributed to are in a standard format, and only this one looks funky. I wonder if I just started out differently, then kept it internally consistent throughout. Either way, I'm going to reformat these refs. There's a few "The Roanoke Times" vs. "Roanoke Times" conflicts, and the titles of the articles need to be put into quotes, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Another enjoyable Virginia Tech bowl article. Here's some of what I found that can be improved.

• "in the competition. The game was the final competition..." Change one "competition" to "contest" or something else that will create more variety. Other than that, I like the many different phrases for game.

• Fixed.

• Louisville Cardinals is linked twice in the lead.

• Fixed.

• Important one: Several sub- headings are identical. Something is needed other than Virginia Tech and Louisville.

• Fixed.

• Team selection: "losing 13–16 in a close contest." Why is the loser's score given first here?

• Fixed. Not sure what I was thinking, but I must've had a reason at the time.

• Should say something about photos: the most appropriate one I can think of is one of Alltel Stadium, or whatever they call it now. I don't suppose a mug shot of Marcus Vick would interest you... :-)

• Heh. I've put in a picture of the stadium for now. We can work out what else might work if you've got another suggestion.

I haven't gotten to the defensive matchups yet, but I can tell already that I will end up supporting this in the future. Like most articles from this editor, it flows well and leaves me wanting to read more, which I will be doing later. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Defensive matchups: Jimmy Williams link needs disambiguation. The link should go to Jimmy F. Williams. While I'm here, a couple of these Tech defensive players have photos, if more are needed.

• Fixed.

• Second quarter: Jeff King also needs dab. Jeff King (American football) is the correct link.

• Fixed.

• Final statistics: "and quarterback Hunter Cantwell was named the most valuable player of the Cardinals." I'm not crazy about of, so how about "was named the Cardinals' most valuable player."

• Fixed.

• There was a mistake on my part; I originally had Final quarter written instead of Final statistics. It wasn't changed, but I'm going to do it myself after I finish here, so I struck it. If it doesn't look right, feel free to change it back. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Postgame effects: "The game itself provided more than $14 million dollars in economic benefit to the Jacksonville area...". That, my friend, is what dollar signs are for.

• Aw, you're all about the dollar signs. :P

• Yeah. I don't make enough of them for doing this. :-):-). Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the two dabs I mentioned above, there are a bunch of others in the article; use the dab checker at the top right of the FAC page to find them.

• Dang, that's a handy tool! I've fixed everything it noted and will definitely add that to my pre-FAC procedure from here on out.

• Still a couple left, but I'll get these too. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for another great review. I appreciate all the checking you've provided this and past FACs. It's definitely helpful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:B

• In the First quarter, was the 4th+6 conversion a fake punt? I'm assuming it was and if so, the article should say so.

• Fixed.

• About stompgate, I don't believe that "apparently in anger" is supported by the sources. There's nothing that I can recall from the game that would suggest that anger had anything to do with it. Whether it was unintentional, an intentional act to cause injury, an act of revenge, or a decision made in anger in the heat of the moment isn't really something we should speculate on.

• Removed.

• I fixed it where I saw it, but most college teams (including VT) call them "tailbacks", not "running backs".

• This was something I had to make a judgment on in regards to readability. I imagined that it'd be easier for someone unfamiliar with college football to understand running back, and the article about the position is labeled that as well.

• I think, so long as its consistently used, it can be either --for the 2007 USC Trojans season article, I used "running back" instead of "tailback" because I wanted to use the most common term --despite the fact that USC usually uses tailback to describe the position. --Bobak (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the chart under Final statistics, Louisville is abbreviated "LU". Is that correct? They are called the University of Louisville, but I didn't fix it in case it was an Oklahoma type thing (the University of Oklahoma is OU for some reason).

• I think you're right on this one as well; I've switched it around.

• In the postgame, it says Stiney replaced Kevin Rogers as QB coach. Is that correct? Mike O'Cain is our QB coach now, but was there some time in between Rogers' departure and Danny Pearman leaving/O'Cain being hired that Stiney was QB coach? I was thinking it all happened pretty close together, but I could be wrong.

• Yeah, it's close enough together that Stinespring's tenure is pretty much irrelevant. I've changed it and added a new citation.

• Otherwise looks good. --B (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Two reasons. First, the naming scheme here seems improper. Personally, I think it's silly we call bowl games by "<sponsor> <bowl name>" and think in the real world it should be "<bowl name> headline sponsored by <sponsor>". That said, the headline sponsors have paid huge sums of money for these bowls to bear their name. As such, the proper title of this article, and similar articles in this vein, should be "<year> <sponsor> <bowl name>". Thus, this article should be "2006 Toyota Gator Bowl", as that is the proper, official name of this bowl. Even the article Gator Bowl notes the "bowl's official name was the Toyota Gator Bowl". Renaming this article to the official name, and leaving a redirect at this name, would be appropriate. Even if you disagree with this naming scheme, it seems a serious fall through that we don't have a redirect at 2006 Toyota Gator Bowl. Second The use of the logo in the infobox is inappropriate. Yes, there's a huge brawl on this issue going on at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem. But here's the crux; this logo is for the entire Gator Bowl series sponsored by Toyota, which covers 11 games. Fair use requirements demand minimal usage. We don't need to sprinkle the logo across so many articles. If someone needs to see the logo, they can see it at the main Gator Bowl article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Thanks for the critique. IIRC, the main reason we decided to use this naming convention is because bowl game sponsors have been changing so frequently that it makes more sense to stick to the simplest possible name. There's also the issue of advertising on Wikipedia pages, which we wanted to avoid. I do agree that we need to have redirects on alternatives, and have created one for the link you provided. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. If you have any suggestions for the content of the article, I'd be happy to make those changes. In regards to the logo issue, I'll continue to address it on the discussion page devoted to the subject. Thanks for the comment. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't want to get drawn into a debate on fair use images here, but logos for events change over time. Many logos for annual events now change every year. The current gator bowl logo is different from the one used for this game. In the future I'm sure the logo will change again, and I think it would actually be a much more appropriate fair use to use the logo from a specific year on that article instead of including every old logo on the main Gator Bowl article. I also think your argument that the official sponsor name of the bowl should be used as the article title because "sponsors have paid huge sums of money for these bowls to bear their name" is weak. That same argument could also be used to justify using the logos on the article page. Sponsors pay huge sums of money to put their name on a logo they hope as many people as possible will see, therefore we should put the logo on the article. Article names are usually the most common term for something, which is not necessarily the official name. Examples include United Kingdom (instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and United States (instead of United States of America). Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not wish to entangle the two reasons I am opposing. They are separate issues. Perhaps the naming convention should be brought up in a different forum. With regards to the logos, I respectfully disagree. Since an argument is being made in the wider discussion on the issue that "this is how it's done" means it is acceptable, I am taking a stance against this usage as I feel it is wholly inappropriate to use logos in this way. One of the best ways to do this is to make it clear that such usage in featured articles in not acceptable. I don't wish to debate the issue of logos further in this FAC. The wider discussion is more appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a number of comments which mainly relate to prose. Due to length, I have put them on the article talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:2006_Gator_Bowl#FAC_comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is another excellent article by JKBrooks85. A few more images would have been nice, but not required. Also, the oppose by Hammersoft based on the fair use of the bowl game logo should not kill this nomination. He is opposing on principle because of the ongoing fair use debate, which is fine, but that alone should not stop an otherwise excellent article from becoming featured. If the fair use debate is resolved in favor of being more restrictive, it is an easy problem to fix by simply pulling the logo off the article at that time. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another great article by JKBrooks. Once again it's well-written, cited, and enjoyable to read. I'm also in agreement with Rreagan007 in regards to logo use. The ongoing debate certainly shouldn't detract from what is an excellent football article. --Geologik (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Yet another great read on a Hokies bowl game. The logo can be removed if deemed necessary, so it's not a factor in my declaration. I also think the current title is the best choice. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Agree with the above, I wish I had the time to do the same amount of excellent work JKBrooks brings to these articles. He's turning into an FA machine. --Bobak (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose References are sloppy. They do appear to support statements, but they are poorly formatted. Even though WP:CITET makes it appear that anyone can do whatever they want, I think FA articles must be held to a higher standard. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please give me an example of what you would prefer? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think that the article is good. Dcollins52^{Tell me what you think} 01:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.