Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring this to featured article status, and a comprehensive peer review would go a long way towards getting to that point. For those who are not familiar with the game, this was an college football game that is considered one of the biggest upsets in the history of the sport. The reason the game was such an upset is that it was a game between teams from different levels of play - Michigan was from the upper-tier Division I-FBS, and Appalachian State was from the lower-tier Division I-FCS. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... I've worked on a number of unique game articles before (i.e. 2004 Emerald Bowl, Navy vs. North Texas, etc.), so this sounds fun. Give me a bit and I'll work through it. –Runfellow (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Lead
  • Since the school is the University of Michigan and it was held at Michigan Stadium, it seems a bit superfluous to include it after "Ann Arbor". Purists may balk, but I think it's pretty clear by then.
    • Good idea; I have made this change, and it should be incredibly easy to fix if there is enough complaining about it. :P Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's just the lead, but I'm a little wary of passive statements like "were considered". I'd like to know who considered them the preseason favorites to win the conference: Sports writers, coaches, fans, or perhaps all of the above?
    • I've fixed it to note it was media outlets. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything in the WP:MOS about rankings like "No. 1" and "No. 5"? Seems like "first" and "fifth" might be appropriate here, but if there's a precedent I'm not aware of, ignore this comment.
  • Since both teams are in Division I, it might make sense to remove that part from the wikilink. That way it's clearer where the link is going (even if it doesn't include the actual "Division I" phrase).
    • Good idea; done. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side note: Isn't it about time FBS and FCS had separate articles? Different national championships, different systems, each notable in their own way. Anyway, on with the review.
      • I agree (and might work on that myself), but it might be best to make sure there are no schisms coming from the NCAA before doing so. Conference realignment seems to have stopped for now, but there are many people advocating splitting the FBS up, and the FCS itself may be struggling in the future due to financial issues, as well as due to issues with public schools operating in conferences dominated by more financially conservative private schools. That's why many top-tier FCS teams (like App and Georgia Southern) are leaving arguably the best conference in the FCS for arguably the worst conference in the FBS - they had a different vision from the private schools, and needed to get out before the crap hits the fan. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Games between FBS and FCS teams typically result in lopsided victories for the FBS team, due to the status of the FBS as the upper-tier of Division I football." There are a few issues with this sentence. I don't think that the lopsided victories are caused by the "status" of FBS teams, but rather by the superior size, larger talent pool, and almost unlimited resources available to FBS teams.
    • I've modified it to remove that; I have not noted the reason why, because I don't believe any source in the article explicitly links the two together (although most everyone who reads the article will understand it is the major factor). Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, in this context, "upper tier" would not be hyphenated. When used as an adjective, "They played upper-tier football," the phrase is hyphenated, but when used as a noun, "They were in the upper tier of the football league", it is not.
  • "Michigan managed to regain" – "Michigan regained the lead" is closer to WP:NPOV.
  • You'll want to wikilink your first mention of the AP Poll.
  • "the Associated Press decided to amend" – The Associated Press amended"
  • "would finish" – "finished"
  • It's certainly not required, but when referring to a specific year's team at a particular school, I usually link to that year's team, if an article exists. For example, "tying South Florida for the 34th overall ranking" could link to 2007 South Florida Bulls football team, since it's referring to that team specifically.
    • Good idea; I've linked to both seasons. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it's correct to say the team was "ranking at" a particular number.
    • Modified to meet earlier wording related to ranking. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
Divisions
  • Unless you’re referring specifically to "Division I/II/III", "divisions" is not capitalized.
  • Rather than use the rather vague phrase “top flight”, I’d use more specific information from the cited source. This will also get rid of the "is considered" part, because that's a passive phrase that begs the question "by whom?"
  • Delete "itself"
  • The "is considered" thing applies in the next sentence, too: "The FBS is considered the tier at which major Division I universities play".
  • Although the "more modest" phrase does come from the source, it's not really a good phrase in this context, since it doesn't really describe the situation accurately. It's not like they're more conservative, or that they don't want the attention (the typical definition of "modesty"). They're just smaller, with fewer resources, etc.
  • "FBS members are allowed to have up to 85 scholarship players, while the FCS is only allowed to have up to 63 scholarship players." – "FBS member teams are allowed to have up to 85 scholarship players, while the FCS teams are allowed to have up to 63 scholarship players."
  • Delete "One of the major differences between the two subdivisions is that the" and begin the sentence with "FBS teams..."
  • "FBS schools hold" – Some stuff here, especially in this paragraph, might be better phrased in past tense. "As of [date]" phrases seem like they're in present tense when you're writing them, but they'll soon be past, obviously. If you can find the "as of 2007" record, all the better.
    • Not sure what to edit here. How is saying something happened as of a year ago being in present tense? I've tried to find as of 2007 information, but I cannot seem to find any. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a .820" – This might be "an .820" but I'm not sure.
  • I don't know if the next statement is really a "however" kind of sentence, but it's not a big deal.
  • "is important towards funding" – "helps fund"
Scheduling
  • "has routinely scheduled" – Like above, this would probably be best phrased in past tense (especially since they're moving up to FBS in 2014). "Routinely" might be better defined, too. Are we talking once a year, twice a year, etc.?
    • I've modified to note what the source says.
  • I'd kind of like to know when they played those bigger schools. Between 2000 and 2007? Or back in the old days?
    • Spread out between their entire history, but probably referring to 1999 (the Auburn game) on. Keep in mind that there was no FBS/FCS until 1978, so App actually had a fair amount of games against 'major conference' teams up until then. I've added more on this on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "negotiations between the two schools reached a halt" – When was this?
Pre-game
  • It's obviously fair to say that AS entered the game as underdogs, but if Vegas points spread people refused to assign a score to the game, I don't think you can specifically say they were "three-touchdown underdogs". Either the line was set at -21 or it wasn't.
    • Altered to remove the three-touchdowns bit. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appalachian State
  • "last two" – "previous two"
  • "third consecutive one" – "third consecutive title"
  • "with each of their six wins having come against Wake Forest." – This is already mentioned above in the article, so you'll want to figure out where it's more important.
    • Removed the Wake Forest bit, but kept the overall record, which was not mentioned in the other section. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "major weapons" – "major offensive weapons", but that's no big deal either way.
Michigan
  • "Michigan entered the game as the No. 5-ranked team in the country" – In the lead, you mentioned that "both" polls had them ranked No. 5. It would make sense, then, to name them both here.
  • "They were expected to contend for a national championship." Same kind of thing as mentioned above: By whom?
  • "each of whom had decided to stay for their senior year." – I get what you're trying to say here, but it sounds a bit redundant. They're in the senior class, so it follows that they had stayed there for their senior year. Perhaps rephrasing the sentence might do it some good.
    • Altered to note the reason why they stayed, and to remove the second mention of senior status. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their decision was attributed to" – Who attributed the decision to those reasons? If they players said so themselves, you could just say "all three stated that their reasons included..." or something to that effect.
    • Noted the players said it was their reasoning. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence is also a bit of a run-on. It changes its subject quite a bit.
      • I've modified it to have more sentences. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that one ESPN.com blogger writing that Michigan "could potentially be one of the most explosive offenses in college football" is the same as saying they're "expected to be among the best in college football", but okay.
    • I see what you mean; modified to note his full quote, as it attributes a few other players, which gives a broader scope. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a three-receiver set" – "using a three-receiver formation"
Game Summary
Broadcast
  • "The game was broadcast on the Big Ten Network, and was the first game to be broadcast on that channel." – "The game was the first ever to be broadcast on the Big Ten Network."
  • " a small number of Wolverine fans were able to watch the game" – A few issues here. A "small number" can be relative or absolute. Is there any way to find out how many actually watched it? Also, I don't know about singling out Michigan fans' lack of access here; did Appalachian State fans not have the same type of problem?
    • Honestly, I don't think there is a way to get a certain number. The quote comes from the President of the Big Ten Network. As for the issue of access to App fans, that is an issue, but I assume it was not enough of an issue for the New York Times to mention. As a resident of North Carolina, I can say that DirecTV is pretty common here, at least in my region; in Michigan, DirecTV was not nearly as common. The game may also have been played on local TV here, since it was in a different region than Michigan is. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quarters
  • "converting a 3rd and 1 with a three-yard" – Not sure what to do here. Regarding downs, 1st–4th seems fine; regarding distances of one–nine yards, you'll want to find a consistent system. So it should probably be "3rd and one with a three-yard" or "3rd and 1 with a 3-yard".
  • There's nothing wrong with using en dashes for scores, like 7–7, rather than saying things like "7 all".
  • You may want to consider wikilinking to some of the less-common football terminology. People can go overboard with this, but things like "conversion", "three-and-out", etc. may not be self-explanatory. I try to write so that someone who may not know the basics of the sport can still learn more if he or she wants to.
  • Comma after "three-and-outs for both teams"
  • "The Mountaineers, on the fifth play of the drive," – "On the fifth play of the next drive, the Mountaineers..."
  • Is the kickoff after halftime technically considered the "opening" kickoff?
    • I do not know, but I have altered to note what is specifically. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing some of the focus in the summary away from offense, when the situation calls for it. For example, instead of "Edwards threw an interception", tell us "[player] intercepted an Edwards pass and returned it X yards."
  • "a 46-yard field goal attempt by Rauch was missed" – "Rauch missed a 46-yard field goal attempt".
  • "just over a minute" – Might want to clarify that this was a minute of game time, not real time.
  • Since the original image used here is quite large anyway, how about cropping out the top half to remove the fans, so that the image focuses on the players? That way it could be much wider without taking up a huge amount of space (and you already have shots of the fans elsewhere anyway). Perhaps something like this?
    • I would crop it myself, but since you kindly made a crop I have added that one. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
  • There's no "official" way to to it, of course, but it might make sense to just put the "notes" information here at the beginning of the "Game summary" section. That way you don't need to have the very short subsection here.
    • I've merged the content with the 'broadcast' section and renamed it 'broadcast and game notes'; that is to avoid having two smaller sections, when one could easily meet both. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical summary
  • I guess the purpose of this was to avoid repeating information that was already in the table, but it feels weird not using hard numbers when you have them and using "more" or "fewer" so much here. I know the point here is to use summary style, but this first paragraph just feels weird.
    • I've modified it to note specifics. Does that help? Toa Nidhiki05 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any other problems in this section. Fairly straightforward stuff.
Aftermath
Appalachian State"
  • Three sentences in a row here begin with "Appalachian State". Might want to find a way around that.
  • Source 23 and 24 can probably be put together. It's not like they're about entirely different things.
  • "won out the rest of their regular-season" – "won all of their remaining regular season games"
  • You can probably delete "who finished with an identical 5-2 SoCon record"
  • "securing their third consecutive" – "winning their third consecutive"
Michigan
  • "Wolverines would lose" – "Wolverines lost" This holds true for a number of phrases. The "after" section is hard to write for this reason: You have to talk about something that will happen that already happened. It's still best to use past tense, though.
    • I've tried to rewrite this; what do you think. Toa Nidhiki05 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as I mentioned linking to specific teams above, I'd consider linking to specific bowl games, like the 2008 Capital One Bowl.
Media reaction
  • The quote from Wetzel seems long enough that it could be enclosed in <blockquote></blockquote> tags. It would also break up a large chunk of text to make it easier to read.
  • New York Times – The New York Times
  • Beginning a new paragraph with the Hinnen quote seems arbitrary, as it could have been done before any of the other quotes.
    • Well, the key reason for that is that it is reaction well beyond the event itself - all quotes in the other section came, at the latest, weeks after the game, while the Hinnen quote came five years after it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second part of Hinnen's quote has no end quotation marks.
  • The section overall feels very quote-heavy to me. The general gist of it was that it was a very big deal, but at a certain points, some of the quotes become redundant. These should also be indicative of the larger media reaction, rather than the more exaggerated claims.
    • I've tried to remove some unneeded quote sections and paraphrase them. What do you think? Toa Nidhiki05 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction in Boone and on other campuses
  • You'll want to mention that the Appalachian State campus is in Boone. I suppose most would obviously assume that, but it should probably be explicit.
  • It might make more logical sense to begin the second paragraph of this section with the sentence about Ann Arbor, since that's where it switches to "other campuses".
Rematch
  • This, I think, needs to be a subheading (h3) within the "aftermath" section, rather than its own section.
  • "as well as their first year in the Sun Belt Conference" – "when they join the Sun Belt Conference as full members".
General comments
  • This should probably be your top priority: The first source, an ESPN article, is now a dead link. Never fear, though, as there is an archive with past versions you can use to add to the reference. Let me know if you don't know how to do this and I'll do it myself.
  • There's nothing about the defense or special teams in the pre-game buildup section. Given that it was special teams who decided the end result and the defenses obviously played an important role, this might be something to work on.
    • I've added info on defenses for both teams. Toa Nidhiki05 02:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot mid-sentence quotes that begin with capital letters. Regardless as to whether the original was capitalized, the first word in a quote is only capitalized if it is a proper noun.
Positive notes

I know these can feel like getting picked on sometimes, but this really is a good article and worthy of a few positive notes.

  • For the most part, the article has avoided a lot of the subtle NPOV issues that often pervade sports articles ("just 33 yards", "only two completions", etc.)
  • The article answers the vast majority of the questions in the wikiproject's style guide quite well.
  • With a couple of very small exceptions, the game summary is not overly detailed, another issue I run across often with CFB games.
  • The prose is mostly precise and accurate, with only the odd exceptions I mentioned above worth noting.

I haven't had time to check all of the above for goofs of my own (and I'm sure there are a few), but please let me know if something doesn't make sense. It's a very good article and well worth taking the time to bring up to FA status, if you so desire. The subject is interesting, the game exciting, and the prose very well written. Best of luck on getting it to where you want. – Runfellow (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I very much appreciate the thorough review; this should go a long way towards getting through the FA process. I've currently made the lede changes, and I will continue with the rest in just a bit. I have made all changes required, or at least answered all concerns. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2007_Appalachian_State_vs._Michigan_football_game/archive1&oldid=1142501469"