Talk:2011 Orange Bowl

2011 Orange Bowl has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 31, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Stanford University: Athletics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Stanford Athletics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

College football Mid‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Orange Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MobileSnail 03:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. This is my first review in a while so I will probably seek a second opinion on the verdict. I'll try to take my time though so it will take a couple of days.

Quick Fail Criteria

Nothing glaring, so I'll move on.

Full Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria 1. Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality:

No issues, article is quite well written.

B. MoS compliance:

Looks good, particularly all refs outside punctiation. The redlinks all seem acceptable, but if over time the articles are not created I encourage their removal.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

Looks good. Lots of sources.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

Just a minor little thing here: The lead is fairly long, but I guess it's OK. However, any chance you could get a citation in there somewhere? Like how about one where it says "the game kicked off at 8:39 p.m.". Otherwise very thickly sourced where possible.

Has been explained. OK now.

C. No original research:

Seems like most of the article is quite well referenced. Nice!

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

Like the coaching changes info and the Team Selection part.

B. Focused:

Good to go.

4. Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:

No bias.

5. Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc:

Pretty much one editor doing most of the work so this isn't an issue.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

The logo is tagged appropriately.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

This kinda stands out to me. I know it is not easy to get free images, but this topic should have some out there. Could you maybe get an image in the prose somewhere? There are no images except for the logo in the infobox.

This has been taken care of. Great job. The pictures really make the article now I think. It really looks great.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I've temporarily placed this one on hold to get a few minor things fixed which I will outline below. I will try to handle some of them myself. MobileSnail 05:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will promote the article now. Great work! MobileSnail 20:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary fixes

The article is definitely lacking in pictures. For as long as the article is, it would be nice if you could fit a shot of the game in somewhere there if availible. I think a picture of Andrew Luck, as he was the game's MVP, may be appropriate as well, so I will do that.

Done This has been done via Flickr. Thanks! MobileSnail 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reference somewhere in the lead section would be useful where relevant.

Done This has been clarified, and now is good to go. MobileSnail 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue checklist

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Orange Bowl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 Orange Bowl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

2011 Orange Bowl Bus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]