Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/2007 USC Trojans football team/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 USC Trojans football team

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its reached GA status, using Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Reviews and the general GA review process, and I wanted to have others take a look before moving on towards an FA nomination. The only precedent for a FA college football season is the exceptional 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article. This article mimics the 2005 Texas style fairly closely; both articles are very long due to the nature of summarizing a 12+ game season. The extra size in the USC article is due to a more extensive "Before the season" outlook and storyline. Other than the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong.

Thanks, Bobak (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now addressed the automated peer review issues that were brought up; several were false-positives (i.e. article titles that used "don't"). --Bobak (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-Since the structure and relative comprehensiveness of the article is based on the aforementioned 2005 UT football season FA, I will focus on prose (I'll address a section at a time):

Lead

  • "The team entered the season with high expectations ranked #1 in all national pre-season polls, picked unanimously to win the Pac-10 Conference and expected to play for a national championship." Split the sentence up: "The team entered the season with high expectations. It was ranked #1 in all national pre-season polls, picked unanimously to win the Pac-10 Conference and expected to play for a national championship."
  • "41 point underdog". Hyphen between 41 and point.
  • "After suffering a second loss, there were questions as to whether the team would be able to even win their own conference, let alone compete nationally". suffering a second loss-->their second loss. "Suffering a second loss" sounds a little unencyclopedic to me.
  • "However USC defied mid-season expectations and rallied its season, rising to a final rankings of #2 in the Coaches Poll and #3 in the Associated Press (AP) Poll." Comma after however. "...rising to a final rankings of #2 in the Coaches Poll and #3 in the Associated Press (AP) Poll." would be better written "finished the season ranked #2 in the Coaches Poll and #3 in the Associated Press (AP) Poll."
  • "By the end of the season they were said to be playing the best football of anyone in the country." I know that there are four references provided to verify that statement, but you might want to provide a general description of who said that (sports magazines, commentators, etc.).

Before the season

  • "The team received a boost in the offseason when many draft-eligible juniors decided to return to school for their senior seasons, leading to the Trojans being tabbed as the preeminent national championship favorites for 2007." This sentence is a bit awkward. Change the comma to a semicolon, and change "leading to" to "resulting in".
  • "On the day before the season, three of four experts at Sports Illustrated online predicted USC would win the BCS Championship Game, attributing the decision to the Trojans defense." What is the day "before the season"?
  • "Senior starting quarterback John David Booty will enter the season as a front-runner for the Heisman Trophy." This sentence needs an update; will enter-->entered.
  • "In judging USC as a pre-season favorite, particular emphasis was made on the defense with 10 returning starters and key backups returning to a defense that was considered to be one of the best in the nation during 2006 season, the highlight being the linebacking corp led by Brian Cushing, Keith Rivers and Rey Maualuga under a return to a 4-3 defense." This sentence simply needs to be rewritten.
  • "USC was able to bring in another top recruiting class, highlighted by the top three players from the "ESPN 150": #1 Joe McKnight (RB); #2 Chris Galippo (LB); and #3 Marc Tyler (RB)." How about a shorter, sweeter sentence: "USC's stellar recruiting class was highlighted by the three highest ranked players from the "ESPN 150": #1 Joe McKnight (RB); #2 Chris Galippo (LB); and #3 Marc Tyler (RB)."
  • "USC also recruited former University of Nebraska kicker, Jordan Congdon, but will not be eligible for the 2007 season; and Brad Smith, formerly of Davidson College who is eligible because the NCAA permits graduated non-scholarship players a one-time transfer with immediate eligibility." Shouldn't "but will not" be "who was not"? Add comma after College and change is to was.
  • "Also in August, backup receiver and redshirt freshman Jamere Holland was dismissed from the team, although not for any violation for team rules and he was allowed to stay on scholarship for the year; Holland redshirted last season after breaking his collarbone, reinjured it during spring practice and had clashed with coaches during his return to fall camp." Try this: "Also in August, backup receiver and redshirt freshman Jamere Holland was dismissed from the team, although not for any violation of team rules. He was allowed to stay on scholarship for the year. Holland redshirted last season after breaking his collarbone, reinjured it during spring practice and had clashed with coaches during his return to fall camp."
  • As a general note, I don't think that dates should be autoformatted. However, the decision whether to take out autoformatting or not rests with the consensus of the editors of each individual article. See User:Tony1/Survey_of_attitudes_to_DA_removal#Proposal_to_remove_date-autoformatting.
  • "Some intra-conference controversy arose in March 2007, when Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh was quoted as saying '[Pete Carroll]'s only got one more year, though.'"
  • "The comment caused a rebuke from Carroll and added some intrigue to their October 6 game." Once again, "some" is the unnecessary word.
  • "In early July, LSU coach Les Miles stirred some inter-conference controversy when he publicly criticized USC's 2007 schedule in front of LSU boosters; though the two schools had not played each other since 1984, the LSU Tiger faithful maintained a strong grudge against the Trojans after they shared the national title in the controversial 2003 season." Can you guess what word should be deleted? ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this very useful feedback; I've made all the changes --though I'll probably stick with autoformatted dates since it was previously brought up as an issue and I think its the safer option for now. The problems you noted definitely made me cringe, several date to my early, ill-advised attempts to cram every fact that could be associated with a citation into one, ultra-long sentence. That was a bad idea. I look forward to any more suggestions you might have. --Bobak (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You're probably right about date-autoformatting. It is a hot button issue right now. Best to keep everything the same until the storm passes. I'll post the next section's issues soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule-No issues :)

Roster

  • Were there any walk-on players? If so, make a note about them.
  • You may want to make a note that the redshirt symbol indicates that the player redshirted their freshman year. Remember, the goal is to make the article as comprehensive and self-explanatory as possible.

I need to catch-up with the walk-ons, I'll go look at the online edition of the 2007 Media Guide and 2008 Rose Bowl Media Guide which should have them listed. As for the redshirt note, despite its prevalence, some players do not redshirt a freshman season (the most often reason is a medical redshirt, like CJ Gable who ended up redshirting the 2007 season due to an abdominal injury); did you mean more of a general note of what a redshirt means? --Bobak (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've come up with what you're looking for on the redshirt issue. All the walk-ons are also included now. --Bobak (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly what I meant, good change. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching staff-No issues :)

Game notes

Idaho

*"Trojans Defensive Coordinator Nick Holt had previously been the head coach of the Idaho Vandals between 2004–2005; previous to that he was USC's linebackers coach from 2001 to 2003 under Carroll." previous to that-->before that.

  • "The highlight of the Trojans offense were the running backs, who rushed for 214 yards while Idaho was held to 98." was-->were, the sentence is talking about one highlight.

At Nebraska

  • "In the pre-season, the game was named as one of the candidates for the 10 most important games of 2007, particularly for the Huskers trying to show progress under 4th year head coach Bill Callahan." Let's split this up: "In the pre-season, the game was named as one of the candidates for the 10 most important games of 2007. For the Huskers, the game was especially critical to their hopes of showing progress under 4th year head coach Bill Callahan."
  • "Because of the significance of the game, ESPN College GameDay chose the game as the site of its weekly broadcast." Could we get rid of one "game"?
  • In the Idaho recap, I see "true freshman Joe McKnight". In this section, I see "true-freshman Kris O'Dowd". Which is it, hyphenated or not?
  • "Anticipation for the game was high in Lincoln with strong demand for tickets and accommodations; and the game brought celebrities including USC fans Will Ferrell (also an alumnus) and Keanu Reeves, Nebraska fans Larry the Cable Guy, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and Ward Connerly; past Husker Heisman-winner Mike Rozier, Trojans Heisman-winner Marcus Allen and star Trojans safety Ronnie Lott were on hand for the game." Issues for this sentence:
    • "Anticipation for the game was high in Lincoln with strong demand for tickets and accommodations;" Comma after Lincoln, eliminate with and replace with fueling.
    • The "and" after the first semicolon is unnecessary.
    • Insert also between were and on; otherwise it makes it sound like the other fans didn't come to the game.
  • "The game fell on Pete Carroll's 56th birthday." You know the people at FAC will want a source for this, might as well insert one now.
  • "The Trojans led 42–10 going into the fourth quarter, with Nebraska scoring two touchdowns in the final five minutes during garbage time." Eliminate the additive link with+ -ing construction whenever possible. Change the comma to a colon, eliminate with, and make scoring "scored".
  • "The Trojans dominated on the ground, out-gaining Nebraska 313–31 in rushing yards and averaged 8.2 yards per carry: the most ever against a Nebraska team." Comma instead of colon, that is additional information.
  • "Stafon Johnson led the USC running back corp with a career-best 144 yards in 11 carries with one touchdown; also with major contributions were C.J. Gable (69 yards in four carries, including a 40 yard run), Washington (43 yards in 12 carries with two touchdowns), and another versatile performance by fullback Stanley Havili (52 rushing yards in 2 rushes with one touchdown, thre passes for 22 yards with one touchdown)." The is redundant; corp is unnecessary, pluralize running back. "also with major contributions"-->other major contributors. Typo check: Thre?
  • "After losing some first place votes in the polls during the bye week, USC's performance regained six after their performance against the Huskers in a hostile environment." Two options here: Remove the redundant word some, or replace some with the exact number of first place votes lost.
  • "Receiving particular attention was the Trojans offensive line, as well as the continued poise and ability of freshman center O'Dowd." What type of attention did the O-line receive?
I've made all changes suggested up to this point. --Bobak (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the at Washington and Washington State sections. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also copyedited the Stanford game section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that will make you groan: All the references must use the cite template. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been going off of policy statements in both Wikipedia:CITE, stating "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged"; as well as WP:CITET, noting that "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines." Thus I've been sticking to my way because its consistent and encompasses all required information for citations. --Bobak (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Thanks for informing of that; I had never read that section of the guideline before. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm going to copyedit the rest of the article's prose myself. Then, I'll look for other issues and post them here.
I've finished copyediting the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tremendous job! It reads much better now. Other then the few specific comments I had about a few issues, I've followed all your recommendation. Thank you very much! --Bobak (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues:

  • Arizona State game note section needs link to their 2007 season.
Fixed this and other see also links myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USC visited inter-sectional rival Notre Dame for their 79th annual game for possession of the Jeweled Shillelagh." I know that Notre Dame is an independent, but is it really considered an intersectional rival?
On Notre Dame: the term "intersectional" was more popular about 50 years ago, but is still used for this rivalry. Here's a NYT article from 1958, an LA Times article from 2002, and an SI piece from 2005 that use the term in describing the term "intersectional" in describing the rivalry, the latter two include the more recent trend of calling it the "greatest intersectional football rivalry" --a phrase I didn't use because it hasn't quite become "official" (see Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate). --Bobak (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the After the season section, wouldn't the subsection titled "Comments" be better titled "Achievements"?
The subsection title was based off of the Wikiproject:CFB's Yearly team page format. Also, if the team had flopped (I'm currently working on a season where the team was abysmal), this section would be much more critical; since USC finished #2, it didn't have too much negative to write about under the end of season comment section. --Bobak (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the loss to 41-point underdog Stanford, their season came into serious question, and after further losing to Oregon there were questions as to whether USC would even win the Pacific-10 Conference." What does "their season came into serious question" mean?
Clarified. --Bobak (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my issues have been resolved. I think this article is FAC-ready. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2007_USC_Trojans_football_team/archive1&oldid=233082979"