Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games/archive1

Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games

I've been working on this featured topic for a little under two years now, and I think it meets all the requirements. More than a third of the articles are FAs (including one FL), and the remainder are GAs. I'm satisfied with my work, and I hope you will be too. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please leave a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support unless I am missing something major, I think this is a pretty neat topic. Nergaal (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is a fantastic topic, it is always great when a topic of this size comes along. It has taken a lot of dedication on your part to get this topic to where it is today, and you fully deserve the promotion that I hope will result. The only minor issue I can find that needs addressing is that the section on the 2009 Orange Bowl in the lead article needs expanding with details of the match - I guess you last updated it before the match was played - rst20xx (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's pretty cool how you dedicated most of your Wikipedia time on 22 of these articles (that's how much I counted from your userpage). I might say, well done! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regard to the topic article, there needs to be consistency in the score boxes: They should all be positioned below the Main article links, not some above them. Also in the score boxes, they vary in order of teams: is it supposed to be the designated home team, which isn't mentioned elsewhere? I don't care which but pick winner on top, Virginia Tech on top, or make it clear that's the home team. The section on the most recent game, the 2009 Orange Bowl, needs to be expanded to be in line with the others in length. You also need consistency among the game articles. One thing I noticed was variable header titles. Pregame buildup or Pre-game buildup? Postgame effects, Post-game effects, or Aftereffects? Maybe the Wikiproject has a standard layout, otherwise, pick any one of them and stick with it. Rather than Notes sections, they should all be References sections. Great job overall! Reywas92 ^Talk 00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like 1996 Orange Bowl (December) was the only one where the infobox was above the main template. The team order is defined in the template as home/visitor. I'd suggest talking to the template author if you think that should be made more clear. I've also gone through to standardize section titles and work on that length item in the parent article. Thanks for the comments! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and about the notes/references item, I use "Notes" because in articles like Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, I use book/video references that are cited frequently. That isn't so much the case in these articles since there's no book cites, but I prefer to keep a consistent style with myself, similar to the way I don't use citation templates. The naming convention comes from Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Notes and References. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I mean the order of the scorebox and Main article links on the main list. Up to 2003 the scoreboxes are correctly below the links, but after that they're above. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't the main article name be List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games? I am talking about the actual article.—Chris! _ct 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. It's been moved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I must say that the topic is nicely done.—Chris! _ct 23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've been waiting for this topic for a long time. Great job. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's pretty impressive. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome work. Have to work quick if they do well this season though. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's one thing I was keeping an eye on. Since eight items are featured, and there'll be 24 items in the list after January, I shouldn't have to get another featured item until 2011. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work! -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]