Jump to content

Talk:2006 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2006 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This has been sitting here a while, so I'll take it up. Will post review asap. Kosack (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

• "Called the "Game of the Century,"" this could do with a citation or some sort of attribution.

Per WP:LEADCITE, direct quotes in the lede should generally be sourced. Kosack (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "historic rivalry", historic sounds like a WP:PEACOCK term here.

• "offensive shootout", might be a bit WP:Jargony for the average user. Is there a relevant link that can be added?

• "Considered by some the greatest rivalry in sports", I would suggest amending this to American sports. The ref here and the ones further down, appear to be entirely based on American sports and don't appear to even claim such a wide-ranging coverage and perhaps don't provide an worldwide viewpoint.

• "the AP preseason", link AP here to AP Poll like the infobox.

• "claimed the Big Ten championship outright for the first time since 1984 and also claiming", claiming doesn't work here and is a bit repetitive in close proximity anyway

Pre-game buildup

[edit]

• Add links for both teams in the first sentence, you're essentially starting afresh with links in the main text.

• As above, the greatest rivalry in sports probably needs amending to "American sports" I would say based on the sources provided.

Michigan

[edit]

• "legendary Michigan coach Bo Schembechler", legendary is again a WP:PEACOCK term. No need to link Schembechler again either. Per WP:OVERLINK, a link should generally only appear once in the lede and once in the main body.

Ohio State

[edit]

• "second game of a home-and-home series", this could do with some clarification. Is it consecutive home games over two years?

  • A home-and-home is a two-game series played between two teams where one team hosts the first game and the other team hosts the second game; typically they are played in back-to-back seasons but can be spaced out as well. I added "in Austin" to clarify that Ohio State did not host Texas in 2005, is this sufficient clarification? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Troy Smith linked twice in this section.

• The second paragraph has only one ref and it appears to have expired. Can this be recovered using an archiver?

• Quarterback is linked here , but used twice previously in the article. Move the link to the first usage.

Game summary

[edit]

• Link ABC.

• "due to the circumstances of matchup", should this be the matchup? Reads a little oddly right now.

• "would be played under the lights", the use of future tense here doesn't work. Perhaps "had been played under floodlights"?

• "extensive media coverage from ABC and ESPN, including extensive coverage", the double use of extensive coverage is a bit repetitive.

First quarter

[edit]

" A lot of repeat links here, Hart, Manningham, quarterback, Smith and Henne.

• "Ohio State was also unable to move the ball on their next", a mix of singular and plural when referring to the team. Stay consistent and use one format.

Second quarter

[edit]

• Ted Ginn repeat linked.

Third quarter

[edit]

• Garret Rivas is linked here but is mentioned previously, move the link to the first mention.

• Pittman repeat linked.

Fourth quarter

[edit]

• Robiskie repeat linked.

• No need for first names of Henne, Pittman or Ginn.

Statistical summary & Aftermath

[edit]

• Repeat links and first names are prevalent here too

  • As far as I have been able to tell, first names in the scoring summary are pretty common even if they're mentioned in the body previously. I cleared up the repeats in the stats section as best I could find. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the potential rematch section, might be worth mentioning why they would meet again. I'm assuming it's because of their ranking but, as an outsider to college football, it wasn't totally clear to me that was the reason why

References

[edit]

• Ref 1 needs a publisher, is the Sunshine Forecast a reliable source?

That's all I've got, it's a nicely written piece with only some general tidying to look at. Placed on hold for now. Kosack (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack thank you for the review, I will do my best to get to this as soon as I can (I know it's a little over the 7-day timeframe but I am trying to keep up with this year's bowl games at the moment), I hope that's alright with you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's a busy time of year for everyone. Kosack (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: I think I have covered everything! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get onto another read through of this as soon as possible. Been a bit light on editing over the Christmas period. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack sounds good, no rush! I am plenty busy on bowl game articles at the moment so no sweat if you don't get to it soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only things I can see are the lead cite as mentioned in my comment above and there are a number of repeat links in the aftermath section. We'll be good to go once those have been looked at. Kosack (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: I added the cite and I think I took care of the duplicated links though I am away from my computer and dupe links are harder to spot on mobile. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, happy to promote now. Kosack (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Issues have remained unaddressed, article improver did not respond despite a message.

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by PCN02WPS (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 02:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Michigan_vs._Ohio_State_football_game&oldid=1196485242"