Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Heart of Dallas Bowl
- 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: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2016 Heart of Dallas Bowl
- ... that Army defeated North Texas in the 2016 Heart of Dallas Bowl after losing to them earlier that same season? Source: Army rushes past North Texas in OT at Heart of Dallas Bowl
5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- The last paragraphs in each of the team sections is missing a citation. I'd also like to see more variety, rather than using just ESPN game reports. - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Winsipedia does not seem to be a reliable source; ESPN source given in hook is not used in the article.
- Interesting:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Needs some work before it can be used. SounderBruce 04:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is just a quick question, but I was wondering if a different hook fact could be used. I admittedly know little about bowl games or US college sports rivalries, but I'm pretty sure that one team beating another team in the post-season or equivalents after losing to them in the regular season is quite routine in American sports, so I don't really see how the hook fact is anything special. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- In college football, it's a bit unusual to have two meetings between teams in separate conferences, let alone an independent school (with no conference affiliation). The article makes it pretty clear: they teams had only met 4 times during a 20-year period before 2016. SounderBruce 03:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- The concern I have is that people unfamiliar with college football (which is probably not the norm in America but may be the norm in the rest of the world) may not be aware of this fact, meaning the hook as written has a relatively narrow audience. The context isn't clear in the hook, and that may need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and SounderBruce: The interesting bit of the hook was that they'd already met once that season, which happens rarely in college football, as SounderBruce mentioned above. If either of you have another hook I'd be perfectly fine with changing it up to make it more understandable for a wider audience. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- I took a look at the article and tried thinking up of something, but my admittedly limited knowledge of college football meant I couldn't come up with anything. Perhaps another editor who specializes in the topic could come up with something better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- As a college football guy, I can probably throw out a suggested hook. After reading the article, North Texas (and technically Army, but that's a story that's going to be hard to explain in just a DYK hook) being invited to a bowl game despite having a losing record might be interesting enough for non-sports fans (it's not the only instance in history, but it's still rare and those unfamiliar with college football will obviously not know). Maybe something like ALT1 below would suffice? Zappa⚡Matic 04:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that North Texas was invited to play in the 2016 Heart of Dallas Bowl despite having a losing record? Source
- I would support the above proposed ALT1. I will work on improving citations and expanding the "game summary" section with some prose in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1 sounds good, but for the benefit of others, what does "technically Army" and "too complicated to explain in a hook" mean? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's mostly just a lighthearted remark on my part, but here's the explanation for anyone unfamiliar with college football and is curious: Army was 6–5 when they were invited to the bowl game, but two of their wins came against NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision teams, and the second should not count toward's one's bowl eligibility. To become bowl eligible, a team must have at least six victories (though as stated in the article, the lack of available bowl slots led to them getting in anyway). My "losing record" is a bit inaccurate as Army would be at .500 rather than below, but the point still stands in that they technically were not bowl eligible when they were extended the invitation. Zappa⚡Matic 01:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1 sounds good, but for the benefit of others, what does "technically Army" and "too complicated to explain in a hook" mean? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would support the above proposed ALT1. I will work on improving citations and expanding the "game summary" section with some prose in the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- As a college football guy, I can probably throw out a suggested hook. After reading the article, North Texas (and technically Army, but that's a story that's going to be hard to explain in just a DYK hook) being invited to a bowl game despite having a losing record might be interesting enough for non-sports fans (it's not the only instance in history, but it's still rare and those unfamiliar with college football will obviously not know). Maybe something like ALT1 below would suffice? Zappa⚡Matic 04:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I took a look at the article and tried thinking up of something, but my admittedly limited knowledge of college football meant I couldn't come up with anything. Perhaps another editor who specializes in the topic could come up with something better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and SounderBruce: The interesting bit of the hook was that they'd already met once that season, which happens rarely in college football, as SounderBruce mentioned above. If either of you have another hook I'd be perfectly fine with changing it up to make it more understandable for a wider audience. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- The concern I have is that people unfamiliar with college football (which is probably not the norm in America but may be the norm in the rest of the world) may not be aware of this fact, meaning the hook as written has a relatively narrow audience. The context isn't clear in the hook, and that may need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- In college football, it's a bit unusual to have two meetings between teams in separate conferences, let alone an independent school (with no conference affiliation). The article makes it pretty clear: they teams had only met 4 times during a 20-year period before 2016. SounderBruce 03:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is just a quick question, but I was wondering if a different hook fact could be used. I admittedly know little about bowl games or US college sports rivalries, but I'm pretty sure that one team beating another team in the post-season or equivalents after losing to them in the regular season is quite routine in American sports, so I don't really see how the hook fact is anything special. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Just checking in after these updates. The sourcing issues brought up in the original review still have not been resolved. The ALT1 hook is good as long as the losing record is mentioned in the prose (as it is currently just a figure, not mentioned directly) and linked to Winning percentage. This nomination has been open for over a month now, and I'd like to see some progress and let it enter the queues soon. SounderBruce 06:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: I will begin on those changes today. Thank you so much for your patience and your willingness to work with me to improve both the article and the DYK. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: The sourcing issues you brought up in your initial review have been resolved; the ESPN game summaries have been replaced with news articles from the internet or Newspapers.com, and the non-RS Winsipedia has been replaced as well. Please let me know if there is any more work that needs to be done in order for the nomination to pass a review. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- PCN02WPS, good work on finding newspaper sources. The 2nd citation (CollegeFootballPoll) needs to be replaced, as does the 5th (MCubed). Please also add complete information for those newspaper sources, including authors, publication dates, and links to the newspapers. SounderBruce 05:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: I replaced the two sources you mentioned, although admittedly the 2nd citation was hard to find a reliable replacement for (I'm hoping 24/7 qualifies as reliable). All three newspaper sources now have authors (save for one, who did not have an author listed, but rather just "Associated Press"), publication dates, pages, and Wikipedia links to the newspapers. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- PCN02WPS, good work on finding newspaper sources. The 2nd citation (CollegeFootballPoll) needs to be replaced, as does the 5th (MCubed). Please also add complete information for those newspaper sources, including authors, publication dates, and links to the newspapers. SounderBruce 05:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: The sourcing issues you brought up in your initial review have been resolved; the ESPN game summaries have been replaced with news articles from the internet or Newspapers.com, and the non-RS Winsipedia has been replaced as well. Please let me know if there is any more work that needs to be done in order for the nomination to pass a review. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
