Talk:2006 Gator Bowl/GA1

GA Review

Any comments are welcome Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 04:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs pictures, per #6 in the Good article criteria. Flickr might be a good place to look. Okiefromokla ^complaints 16:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, pictures are not required for an article to be GA. It is recommended, but not required. Nikki311 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I'm going to be doing the GA review for this article. I've only skimmed it thus far, but here are some things to fix:

The lead is supposed to be no more than four paragraphs. It is a technicality that can easily be fixed by merging the small middle paragraph with one of the other ones.
- Done.
Image:ToyotaGatorBowl.jpg is not low resolution (far from it, actually) so it needs to be scaled down.
- Done. Reduced to 25% resolution of previous version.
~~In the game summary, each quarter ends with a short one sentence paragraph. Merge those into the paragraph above in each instance.~~
Statistical Comparison --> Statistical comparison
- Done.
RE Images (above): Like I said, pics aren't required, but they really would add to the article. Have you checked Flickr? Just images of a few of the key players would be good, they don't have to necessarily be from this game.
- Yeah, I have. It's tough sometimes to find pictures with CC-appropriate licenses. If I decide to push this for FA status, I'll put a call out for photos on a few Virginia Tech and Louisville football fan sites. That tactic served me well for 2007 ACC Championship Game.
In Final statistics, there are a couple of instances of the refs not being in numerical order ([68][58]), so make sure to fix those and check the whole article for other instances.
- That's because I used a repeating cite instead of cluttering the references list with a repeated listing. See Wikipedia:CITE#Using the same citation again.

I'll go more in depth into the text when I have a bit more time. Nikki311 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished copyediting the article (and knocked off one of the above as I completed it myself). I didn't find any grammar, POV, or any other major errors. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow for the minor improvements listed above. Nikki311 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know about using the same citation again, but all you have to do is switch the ref order. It wasn't a big deal (only occurred twice), so I fixed it myself. Great job on everything else, though, so I'm going to pass the article. Nikki311 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]