Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 14 September 2010 [1].

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games edit

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... this list meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the disambiguation links. NThomas (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although the issue with key still needs to be resolved. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the following reasons:

  1. Texas Tech bowl game occurred on January 2, 2010 when ... This is quite a meaningless sentence. Something is missing. Do you mean "The last Texas Tech game ..."?
    • I combined this sentence with the following one, and corrected both problems with the new sentence. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Red Raiders' 41–31 victory over the Michigan State Spartans brought Texas Tech ... When did this happen?
  3. The Red Raiders' have made 33 bowl appearances, the 4th-most ... This repeats the second sentence in the first paragraph.
  4. Ten bowl games Texas Tech has accepted bids to, have set attendance records. This sentence should probably begin with "all" or "the".
    • It should start with "all" or "the" if the team had only accepted then bowl game bids. If "all" or "the" were added to the sentence, the sentence would read as if the team had set attendance records to all 10 games the team has been excepted to when they have been to 33. Maybe changing the sentence to "Ten of the thirty-three bowl games Texas Tech has been accepted bids to..." would clear that issue up? NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There is no need to have a special section for key. (There is plenty of space to the right of the main table.)
    • A separate section for the key has never been a problem with the other 4 FLs I've taken through FLC. Dozens of similar articles of recently promoted FLs have a separate section for the key also. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hate these two tiny tables hanging over the main table and surrounded by a lot of white space. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Please, use a consistent formating for ranges. Currently it is a mixture of "2004, 2005", "2001–02" and "2001–2006". Use a consistent number of digits.
    • I went ahead and fixed the rest. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Still you sometimes use 2002–03 (two digits) and sometimes 2002–2005 (four digits), the same for 1994–1999. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought I had them all before. Now they're all corrected. NThomas (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. They are still inconsistent. Ruslik_Zero 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Despite my unfamiliarity with the subject, I have stepped in to fix the remainder of the dates to be consistent. It should now satisfy at least that requirement. CycloneGU (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is currently one other featured list on bowl games, List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. This list is nowhere near the referencing and detail standards of that featured list. While I believe certain features of this list, such as the sortable game list itself, would be good to port to the Virginia Tech bowl game list, there are many aspects of the Virginia Tech list, such as the detailed lead and game capsules, that are simply not present here. I believe this article needs a significant rewrite and expansion before it can be considered a Featured List. –Grondemar 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're opposing this nomination because it doesn't match the "standard" "set" by the only other FL with the same title? I fail to understand which part of Featured list criteria this FLC doesn't not satisfy. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific criteria I would say this FLC does not meet are 2 (lead) and 3a (comprehensiveness, specifically related to the absence of the game capsules). –Grondemar 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand if you think this is alone doesn't meet those two, but you're still comparing this list to another. Because this article isn't written similar to the Virginia Tech article doesn't mean it isn't comprehensive. I thought comparing one article to another is discouraged nominations according to WP:WAX. NThomas (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the page WP:WAX links to is titled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"; I'm not sure I agree it is fully applicable to featured content processes. I personally don't see an issue, when two lists are talking about the same aspect of two different topics, and one is already featured while the other is being nominated to be featured, in comparing the two lists to see if the candidate list is comprehensive. I don't think List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games is a bad list by any means; I do think that, in order to be fully comprehensive, the lead should at least talk about the most notable players to play for Texas Tech in bowl games, and the body should include summaries of each of the bowl games, especially for those who don't even yet have an article. –Grondemar 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAX is applicable for this discussion as the points in makes apply to your comparison of an existing FL, not about this FLC meeting FLC. What you're talking about is something I'd expect to find in a peer review, not check to see if a submission meets nomination. This list is in a table format, not a summarized section format like the Virgina Tech list, which doesn't disqualify this list, as a table, from meeting FLC 3a. If the table should include more information to meet 3a, that would be understandable. Adding notable players to the lead would require an expansion of the table. So, what should criteria should the "notable players" included? I could also expand the lead to include which referees and umpire officiated the game. How about who the special teams coaches were? Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. The lead summarizes that is already in the table, meeting FLC 2. If you would stop comparing this list to the Virgina Tech list, I'd still appreciate to get your thoughts on what this article is lacking to meet FLC, not why this list isn't more like the Virgina Tech article. NThomas (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to butt in here folks. I believe NThomas has a point. We have to treat each article on its own without doing a comparison. I mean, using a random manufactured example, if Apple is a featured article, we can't compare Orange to it just because it might not have as many sources or as much information available as Apple does and not promote it based on that comment. Comprehensiveness is a per article determination, not a comparison. If it was a comparison, then Glee (season 1) would have been promoted without delay because it provides much more information than other T.V. lists, and it well-sourced, but so far we are still addressing objections. CycloneGU (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree we need to judge each article and/or list individually against the criteria. However, when two articles cover similar topics, reviewing whether or not the articles discuss similar aspects is a good way to determine whether or not they are comprehensive. To use your example of Apple vs Orange: let's say the Apple article was a featured article, and included a section on the culinary uses of apples. If the Orange article was a featured article candidate, and it said nothing on that subject, it would be reasonable for someone to object on the grounds that the Orange article was not comprehensive. I don't think this is outside ; I've seen comparisons of this nature on WP:FAC relatively frequently.
    Regarding whether sources are available to expand the article: they positively are. ESPN.com has game recaps for all bowl games going back to 2002. 2003 Houston Bowl is a redlink in the list; here is the ESPN game recap. For games prior to 2002 I've sure newspaper archives as well as resources such as the College Football Data Warehouse will have plenty of information. I don't believe without including this type of information this list can be considered sufficiently comprehensive to meet the featured list criteria. –Grondemar 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't spend anymore time debating this since we keep going in circles. NThomas (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I have nothing to do with this article and don't have an interest one way or another whether it goes FL. I do note, however, that this is an application for a Featured LIST. It is NOT an application for a featured ARTICLE. I do agree that more information is available for the subject at hand; however, things like bowl games are quite often likely to have their own pages since they are themselves notable, and the LIST article is likely to have summarized information, not an entire section of prose on each game. Thus, I still consider your argument invalid. CycloneGU (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further reading of the example you provided, I can see that these two articles are in fact COMPELTELY different. From the sounds of it, you want a complete rewrite of the article excluding the actual list, and instead prefer a list of different prose sections for each game that is available. CycloneGU (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the format of this list, and I don't think that the format of the VT list (while a great article) should necessarily be the same format for all bowl game lists.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration, while I still oppose promotion of this article for the reasons I state above, I ask that, if the FLC delegates believe there is a consensus to promote outside of my oppose, to please disregard my objection and go ahead and promote the list. I am new to FLC and realize that my judgment in this instance may not be fully aligned with the FL criteria. –Grondemar 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered my position after reading Giants2008's Support, and have decided to strike my oppose. I would like to see articles created for the missing bowl games before I could be persuaded to support myself, however. –Grondemar 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment What is sourcing the attendance figures? Courcelles 06:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's found in the "Bowl/All-Star Game Records" general reference starting on page 30. NThomas (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... Can this be changed to use page numbers in the referencing, then? I can't get behind a list whose referencing is not more delineated than a 113 page PDF file. Also, when you sort by score, the single digit results show up right in the middle. Courcelles 05:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a citation in the "Attendance" column with the page numbers, 6 total, for the attendance figures. Also, the "Result" column sorts correctly now. NThomas (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As much as I like the VT and UConn formats, there's nothing in the criteria to mandate it, and this list passes comprehensiveness requirements. Courcelles 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • I'm really conflicted on the issue relating to the list's structure, and can see both sides. The Virginia Tech page is clearly a labor of love, with a lot of hard work put into it, but this is more of a traditional list. They both have their strengths, but I really have no preference either way. I do think, however, that the lead could be improved here, with more on the team's history. The notable players are overplayed in the Virginia Tech list in my view, but there are other things that could be added. For instance, they seem to have had a few long losing streaks of 5–6 games, which seems interesting. You could also mention the program's most successful coaches.
  • I took the coaches idea and ran with it. I added a column with the head coach for the bowl game. I'm still working on expanding the lead to incorporate the information though. NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded the lead with more information about the coaches records. Thanks for being patient. NThomas (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2010 Valero Alamo Bowl was the the team's tenth consecutive bowl game appearance." Repeated word needs chopping.
  • I changed the sentence to "The game was the the team's tenth consecutive bowl appearance." since the previous one already mentions the bowl game by name. NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I meant that the "the the" double word was the problem, though I do like the new sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I must have forgot to save the changes. It's fixed now. NThomas (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Red Raiders' have an overall bowl record of 11 wins, 22 losses, and 1 tie." Remove the apostrophe after Raiders.
  • "to the second–oldest college football bowl game." The dash should probably just be a regular hyphen. Oh, and this is joint second-oldest with the Orange and Sugar Bowls. I know it reads better this way, but I fear it's somewhat misleading, implying that it's second-oldest on its own.
  • When I wrote the lead originally, I had mentioned the Orange and Sugar Bowls but adding them back into the sentence in my opinion would almost border on becoming a run on sentence. What about adding a note at the end of the sentence? NThomas (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after "nine more bowl games that Texas Tech has accepted bids to", and after "2009 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic."
  • The general reference should be bulleted.

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I was asked to come back here by Dabomb87 to give a final verdict. While I like the extended game recaps in the Connecticut list, I'm loath to say that they should be standard for all lists of this type. Many lists that come through FLC are similar or slightly improved versions of what has come before. Often, it's difficult for someone who wants to try something different in a list with a previously standard format. I'm still not sure in my own mind which of the two formats in question here is better, but if FL criteria are met, that's all that matters to me. In my mind, they are. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - where a record attendance is denoted, does that mean a record attendance for any bowl game involving Texas? For any game involving Texas at all? For any iteration of that particular bowl? For any bowl game at all? It's not at all clear to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it means that the particular game was the attendance record for that particular bowl game. So, like the 60,127 in attendance for the 1965 Gator Bowl was the record attendance for the Gator Bowl, but that number was later eclipsed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. I've expanded the definition in the lead to explain what the records are for. NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Support now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image caption doesn't tell me what's going on at all. And if the resolution allows, the image could be larger.
  • Increased the size of the image, and expanded the caption. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think you need to link New Year's Day. Most English speakers are aware of that concept.
  • "second–oldest " maybe my eyes but that looks like an en-dash, shouldn't it be a hyphen?
  • "has accepted bids to " -> "to which Texas Tech has accepted bids..."
  • "second most attended" you hyphenate/dash second-oldest but not second most...
  • "of the 2008–2009 bowl game season" - just 2008–09 would be fine. Same with other year ranges, e.g. the notes.
  • Corrected formating on ranges except for ranges spanning different centuries. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 needs an en-dash for the page range.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for being patient with me while working out all of your critiques. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing how record attendance could go up and down. I guess this is similar to Chris' comment up there ^.
  • Since Chris seems to be on a wikibreak, I'll address this here. The "Record attendance†" denotes the bowl game's record attendance, and "Former record attendance‡" was a bowl game that was that bowl's record attendance but has since been broken. It has nothing to do with Texas Tech, other than that the team played in that bowl game were an attendance record was broken. I don't know of a better way to convey that information in the table. Any advice about what could make it clearer to understand. NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added "bowl game" to the key for these entries to distinguish the attendance as a bowl game record and not a Texas Tech record. NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the "Bowl game" col sort? In Safari I have no idea....
  • Its sorts by the bowl game's name (Example: "Builders Square Alamo Bowl", "Sylvania Alamo Bowl" and "Valero Alamo Bowl" sort as simply Alamo Bowl. Same with games that have had completely different names, not just a sponsorship (Example: The "Peach Bowl" sorts as "Chick-fil-A Bowl" the game's current name). Maybe I should add a not similar to the citation in the "Head coach" column? NThomas (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a non-expert this sorting is completely counter-intuitive, and I'm not convinced that your explanation matches the sorting in Safari in any case!
  • The notes on every bowl game explain the bowl's sorting name but I've added a note also explaining the sorting method. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from GrapedApe (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
**Consider creating at least stubs for the redlinked games.
  • I've been working on them offline. They'll be up by the end of the month at the latest.NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any more information on that image in the lead? Who was it? What kind of play? It looks like a HB/TB sweep, but I have only Madden football experience. If such info can be found from the original yerabook, that would be cool
  • Looked it up in the yearbook and the caption reads: "More Cotton Bowl pics. Tech's ranking was raised although we were beaten by St. Mary's 20-13." NThomas (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the reference in the lead necessary? Isn't that information covered by the reference in the table?
    • In the phrase "set a then record attendance of 12,000," shouldn't "then record" be "then-record"?

Support looks to be comprehensive, well-formatted, well-cited, and visually pleasing. As I mentioned earlier, I'm in favor of the format. A few suggestions to go along with my support !vote.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Texas_Tech_Red_Raiders_bowl_games/archive1&oldid=1089078567"