The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [1].

2007 USC Trojans football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Bobak (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe its ready: after reaching GA status, using Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Review and the general GA review process, it has since undergone a solid peer review. The only precedent for a FA college football season article is the exceptional 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. 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. Beyond the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong and look forward to this process. Bobak (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |content=[reply]

Comments - I certainly can't claim that this isn't comprehensive. This is a huge article. My method of prose nit-picking will probably not work well with this, but I might as well offer some advice. —This is part of a comment by Giants2008 (of 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • Reply - Added another wikilink as suggested (wasn't sure if I should do it after already using one earlier in the Pre-Season section). His comments were never clearly outlined as being sarcastic: his first comments were simply stating rumors that offending Carroll, and his second comments appeared to be meant to cover up his faux paus on the first --while they may not have been entirely genuine they were never considered sarcastic --rather a "fine, lets just drop the subject." --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - In this case I disagree because storylines really color college football, particularly the key games (something that is also reflected in 2005 Texas). In the case of Notre Dame, its a serious rival, and the back stories put the game in the context of that rivalry: the first game at the stadium since the Bush Push, the decision to pre-announce the green jerseys, and the complete FUBAR situation at QB leading into the game, etc. I tried to keep each game section around the same size with some variation for the major games. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I see what you're concerned with, I've re-written the sentence to reflect that it added to a continuing call for playoffs, wikilinking the article on BCS controversies. --Bobak (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern, however, is the size. Our readibility tool shows 62.0 KB of readable prose and over 10,000 words of prose, a massive total. I worry with articles like this that the size makes it harder to keep the writing, style etc. tight. Good luck with it, though. I may come back to look at more later, but will probably not check the entire article. There's just too much for my style of reviewing to cover in a timely fashion. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I'm going to offer my support for this article, but I do have a few comments and suggestions. The article is well-written, extremely well-cited, and comprehensive. It's comparable to other featured articles of a similar type, and there's no deal-breaking reason that I can see to deny support at this time. Comments follow: —This is part of a comment by JKBrooks85 (of 09:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • Out of necessity, you use a lot of football terminology and jargon. I've run into problems with that in the past in my CFB FACs, and I'd suggest having a non-American Wikipedian read through the article and simply list points where they don't understand what a term means. I wouldn't have them go into more detail than that to avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer size of the article. Have someone look it over and simply write where they got confused.
  • Reply - I've tried wikilinking the most common, confusing words; and from your earlier recommendation I followed the basis of 2005 Texas and 2005 USC in adding See Alsos to articles on American football rules, American football strategy, American football positions and Glossary of American football --I hope the combination of wikilinks and see alsos will cover all aspects; otherwise this article would get even longer. Its a difficult balance. But if anyone sees anything that could use an additional wikilink, let me know! --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you've made an effort to do that, for which you deserve a lot of credit. But I'd still strongly suggest you find someone who knows nothing about football to do a quick readthrough and pick out points of difficulty. They may not be wikilinkable items -- simply things that need a bit more explanation as to why they're relevant here. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few niggling non-encyclopedic phrases that bothered me; "improbable victory" was one that came to mind. I've been going through and changing them as I run across them, but watch out for that sort of thing. Though it makes the prose a bit more boring, it's usually necessary to sacrifice adjectives in order to achieve full impartiality.
  • Reply - I noticed you've made some of those changes, thanks. It was the most difficult surrounding the Stanford game which, like the Boise State-OU Fiesta Bowl, just begged for strong adjectives. I'm fine with the changes, though. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest grammar problem I've found in it is hyphenation; the most notable example of this was things like "33–yard run," which should just be 33-yard run, using a hyphen because you're creating an adjectival phrase describing the run. There's a few other odd little hyphen problems, but I'm going through and fixing them as I run across them, and as I said, they're minor. You've done a good job copyediting it; it's much better than a lot of other articles I've seen put up for FAC.
  • Reply - Thanks, I'll take a look for any more. I admit I found the WP guides confusing on this point and simply looked for what was done in 2005 Texas (where I actually found several minor errors). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For numbers, you'll need to spell out numbers less than 10 in order to follow the MOS. I've gotten a few of these, but I'm sure there's more in the article, lurking around.
  • The link-checking tool also returns one dead link entitled "Biggest Upset Ever?"
  • Reply - Right, on this one I was hoping the "accessed on" date would vouch for the fact that I read it when it existed, but it appears its going to be a problem. I'll eliminate it as the facts are covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the start, these are all (with the exception of the first comment) minor stylistic considerations and don't keep me from giving you my support for what is an extremely good article that ranks among Wikipedia's best. Congratulations and good work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The sentence it was sourcing was mentioning celebrities at the game, and some of those celebrities were present in pictures on the page in question (the rest with the other two citations for that sentence). There's no issue of reliability in this situation. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious why you think that there is no issue of reliability. We have to rely on the site's reliablity to be sure the pics aren't photoshopped or are of the place in question, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I was actually going to write in my previous answer "unless we believe they would photoshop it, which is exceptionally unlikely" but stopped because I didn't want the reply to get too long --guess I should have: I included two other reliable sources in that citation string that, taken in with the photos, only add to their authenticity. Rush Limbaugh actually uses the same photo from the Husker Nation site in his own entry on his visit. The LA Times covers the other photos. I did not base the sentence off of that one source, when I felt one was weak I tried to double it up with something more reliable; but at the same time its nice to have an additional source with photos. --Bobak (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a photographer. I KNOW how easy it is to do photoshop tricks. It's a professional hazard you have, I don't trust pictures any more, unfortunately. Anyway, works with the backups you've given, striking it, you're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - USCRipsIt.com (despite the odd choice of URL) is an official website of the USC Athletic Department, run in conjunction with HC Pete Carroll's own professional website. Proof of this is available on the Athletic Department's football page (look at the bottom); USCRipsIt.com redirects to petecarroll.com for hosting. Thus the positions on these associated websites are official statements, direct from the source. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Since I can't find any archive of it and have removed it --but this one was by Arash Markazi, which I would've wikilinked if I could've found the archive of the actual post (thus it would've satisfied the exception under WP:SPS). The information was covered in the LA Times articles on the game (number of rushing yards, etc). --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The point I meant to imply is that a person would read that Arash Markazi is a reporter for Sports Illustrated who covers college football, thus there would be no additional legitimize his postings on college football since he would satisfy the exception under WP:SPS, that "in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --Bobak (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - A PR release by an established broker, the statement that they're observing certain games are trading higher than others does not appear questionable, and I decided to source it directly after reading about the high prices and demand elsewhere. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check all references for last access dates. I noticed a couple missing (current refs 230, 231) but don't claim to have caught them all.
  • Does the uploader of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_U3WtAIjY have permission to put this video up? Most stadiums restrict videoing, so I'm not sure we're allowed to link to it. (Video copyright is not an area of specialty here!)
  • Reply - Copyright is something I'm familiar with as an attorney, I was happy to find this clip (as opposed to a part of the actual broadcast) because this sort of usage is fine and will not bring any legal ramifications to this project. Thanks for reviewing all the links, I realize there's a ton. --Bobak (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer that question. The mascot of Stanford is the Cardinal (source). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is; it's a team. Why is Trojans plural and Cardinal singular when referring to a team? The wording is awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Cardinal are always referred to in the singular. See Stanford Cardinal; the nickname is referring to the color cardinal, not the bird. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not always; I see the change was made in 1981. So I guess there's nothing to be done about how awkward the text reads, mixing singular and plural. If any of those sentences can be recast it might help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, not always, but the article is talking about the game against Stanford in 2007, therefore at the time of the game, it has already been decided that the Stanford be referred to as the singular Cardinal. In any case, I defer to the nominator's (and main contributor's) decision; if he/she wants to change it, that's fine by me. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any instance in the text where it is strictly necessary to refer to Trojans v. Cardinal; to make the text read less awkwardly, it seems these instances could just be switched to USC v. Stanford. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I've done that. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; on a complete side note there's a fascinating story about how Stanford went from the Indians to the Cardinal, I recommend finding the story. But yes, they had their "want to be like Harvard" moment and picked the Cardinal (Harvard is the Crimson). The other nickname Stanford is called is "The Farm", an old reference to how it was founded on Leland Stanford's ranch. --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing: who knew anyone from The Farm ever aspired to "be like Harvard" or march in boring straight marching band lines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all ordinals in dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images—This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

  • Reply - Done; though the specific page where the image was taken isn't available, I linked to the football page (incidentally, that logo is only used by the football team). --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean I can't find the image file on the USC Athletics page anymore; they redid their website last season. The own the trademark and it came from them, and here are two ways to show it: (1) the USC Graphic Identity Program identifies (without the image) the "Trojan Football Helmet Head" (which is different from the general Trojan Head) and notes that "All the USC athletic marks are limited to the Department of Athletics", thus the source is the Athletic Department website; (2) you can see it on the sides of the helmets). The image file itself isn't listed anymore from what I can tell, post redesign. Thus I can correctly identify the source of the trademark as the USC Athletic Department, but I can no longer point to the exact file on their website. I hope thats satisfactory. --Bobak (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more sources for the image's ownership from the USC bookstore: The Trojan Football Helmet Head on a helmet, a cap, a bill, a shirt, a DVD, and a pennant. --Bobak (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem to work. I don't think there's an issue because I've clearly identified the trademark/copyright owner of the image, the original source and the only one with legal powers over it. --Bobak (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I feel a bit uncomfortable uploading photos that aren't GNU or my own CC onto Commons; I've already been burned by people who've done that to my photos but forgot to actually write that mine are under CC. While I like that Carroll photo, I've recently uploaded my own photo of Pete Carroll to Commons if someone really needs one. Thank you for your input! --Bobak (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These should be easy to deal with. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as much as I loathe USC, I must say that this is an excellent article. Very well written and referenced. Dare we say too many references. I counted five references regarding the pre-season expectations. But that won't keep me from offering my support. Dincher (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The excess markup (example, bolding on "Reply") isn't needed and does not aid readability on the FAC; in fact, it makes it harder for me to scan to determine what has been done or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*'''Reply''' - No problem, I'll stop --I was actually doing it to help myself keep track of where I'd responded... (Also based off of 2005 Texas' FAC). --Bobak (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find a link anywhere in the article to USC Trojans football, which probably belongs in the lead. Maybe it's there somewhere and I'm just missing it? (It's in the infobox, but can/should it be linked in the article?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an instance where I copied the format of 2005 Texas Longhorn football team, which does not do that. I could link the "University of Southern California Trojans football" part of very first sentence, would that work? Otherwise I'm not sure where to place it (its currently linked in the infobox and the season box at the bottom). --Bobak (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. Your copyediting has been excellent thusfar. I didn't want to include the player who died in the lede because, while it was tragic, it didn't make as much impact as someone like the head coach or starting QB (I'm also worried about it reading like its been padded). As was noted above, in the article and on the website in question: USCripsit is an official website of the USC Athletic Department, the just --for whatever reason-- picked a silly URL. I also don't get why, but there it is. :-) --Bobak (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. One small thing is an imprecise word in the last section. It says "several" Trojans were.... Can we count them up and give the exact number?
Johntex\talk 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Disclosure: I peer-reviewed this article and copyedited it pre-FAC, but I had nothing to do with the fantastic comprehensiveness and sourcing of this article. The prose is also much improved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Made the following suggested fixes: (1) Made hidden table visible; (2) fixed the coaching table, I actually removed "present" based off of my reading of WP:MOSDATE#Precise language; (3) fixed all photos to avoid the left-image issue, for ASU I followed an example used in 2005 Texas where an image was placed to the right of the box score; (4) combined the first two See Alsos to avoid the awkwardness; (5) caught an in-text instance of "No." versus "#", all are now "#" --I'm keeping all as "#" to keep consistent with the schedule box template. --Bobak (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck most of above, two points. The layout guidelines for football articles are unfortunate, with a section called "Comments" (unencyclopedic and not very descriptive) and the large amount of tables plopped right into the middle of the prose, interrupting the article, when they might be moved to the bottom. But if that's what they want, and no one here has objected, so be it. Also, you may have misunderstood my query about # versus No. For example: USC ended the season as #2 in the final Coaches Poll and #3 in the final AP Poll with one first-place vote. A query was raised at MoS about the use of # in prose, suggesting that # should be reserved for tables, while No. should be used within text. USC ended the season as No. 2 in the final Coaches Poll and No. 3 in the final AP Poll with one first-place vote. I don't know how or if that was resolved at MoS. I'm hoping you'll do the follow-up :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a non-Football fan

  • As far as I know, and in this instance I am not as familiar with the history and evolution of terminology in college defensive strategy, the terms for defense (3-4, 4-3, 3-3-5, etc) have not been used to substitute "and"; its hard to tell now as people simply say "three four" or "three three five". --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In college sports, teams are often referred to formally by the single name rather than the "University of" for the sake of simplicity. I have used all the most common and accepted names for teams. With that said, there are a few teams that are better known by their acronym, like LSU (or USC), and in the instance here I made sure to spell out the acronym the first time it was used to avoid confusion). --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah-hah... that table was just set stay expanded at all times, I see the resulting confusion: I've moved the See Alsos that were originally above the Roster to above the Recruiting section, which is the first instance of heavy references to positions and terminology. I've also added a third See Also for Recruiting (college athletics), which goes over star ratings. I have changed the college recruit template to clarify the ESPN number as a grade; it's out of 100, and I've changed the final part of the template to explain that. --Bobak (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More