Wikipedia:Peer review/2009 ACC Championship Game/archive1

2009 ACC Championship Game

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I was asked to submit a peer review for this article in order to fulfill one of the requirements of the Featured Topic of which it is a part. The game won't be played until December, but because someone raised a concern, I'm obliged to submit it here. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:PR stipulates that peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". A very brief article about a game that won't be played until December does not meet this requirement. I don't know who told you you were "obliged" to submit the article, but I think the nomination is premature, and it would be better to submit it when the article is in its developed form. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right too, but in order to satisfy a comment at WP:FTRC, I was asked to list it here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FT? states that "Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." In this case, this article cannot be good or featured because it is about a future event, however it needs including in the featured topic in order for the topic to be comprehensive (the rule is, an article has 3 months from its date of creation to be added to the topic), and hence the best way to ensure the standard of the article is high enough for inclusion, whilst recognising it cannot become a GA, is to get it peer reviewed. This has been a requirement of featured topics for about a year and a half now, and there have been dozens of articles peer reviewed to meet this requirement. It has helped maintain standards for featured topics - rst20xx (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that this is difficult to review because of its limited scope, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - the Selection process and site selection are not mentioned in the lead now. Please see WP:LEAD
Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
The logo shows both the ABC network (which is mentioned in the infobox) and Dr. Pepper, but neither of these is mentioned in the article currently.
I think of 2004 and 2005 as the mid 2000s - see In the early 2000s, the conference underwent an expansion to add three former Big East members: the University of Miami[1] and Virginia Tech in 2004,[2] and Boston College in 2005.[3]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]