Talk:Super Bowl XLII

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page.

Good article review

I have reviewed the article and I have placed it on hold because it does not yet satisfy three of the good article criteria, specifically:

4. Some of the sections are not yet neutral. There still seems to be some minor edit edit wars occurring over pro-Patriot and pro-Giant text. One example is the emphasis placed on the Giants celebration.

5. It is not yet stable. There were 21 edits yesterday (Feb 9) and 5 already today (Feb 10).

6. There are no images of the game, which is the topic of the article. There are only three images in the article: the logo and two about the post-game Giants celebration.

I suggest that we wait until things settle down and the above items are corrected. Truthanado (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been almost a week since the article has been on hold. Let's do an assessment of where we are with respect to GA status by evaluating each of the good article requirements.

1. PASS. It is well written. Although there are some grammar and spelling improvements that could be made, typical of articles of this size.
2. FAIL. It is not factually accurate and verifiable. It contains two "citation needed" tags.
3. PASS. It is broad in its coverage. It covers the topic (a football game) in detail, as well as associated topics before, during and after the game.
4. FAIL. It is not neutral. I believe that the section on the Eels commercial is an unverifiable advertisement and the beginning of an edit war (see the talk page). Since I have made comments on this and do not like to get involved in edit wars, I recuse myself and would be happy to hear what the community thinks about this. The section on the Giants celebration party is written like a press release for the Giants and contains many peacock terms. There has been at least one edit within the past week that claims the Patriots won the game (also affects stability, point 5 below).
5. FAIL. It is not stable. 10 edits yesterday (Feb 15) and 4 already today (Feb 16). Some of the edits are grammar/spelling spelling, which is good. There are still some edits that change content.
6. PASS. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. One image has been added. Comparing this article with last year's Super Bowl XLI, the number and type of images are similar, and I appreciate that desirable images of game situations might violate copyright.

In summary, this article still needs work to reach GA status. I will give it one more week, and then remove it from hold and declare it PASS or FAIL. Truthanado (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my final review of this article. Using the same method as above, this review objectively looks at each of the documented good article requirements.

1. PASS. It is well written. Only a few minor grammar items remain, which is typical of articles of this size.
2. FAIL. It may not be factually accurate and verifiable. Yesterday, the starting lineup was changed, with no cited references.
3. PASS. It is broad in its coverage. It covers the topic (a football game) in detail, as well as associated topics before, during and after the game.
4. FAIL. I am not convinced that it is neutral, although it has greatly improved in the past week. That an obvious Patriots fan would change the Starting Lineup section yesterday raises questions of neutrality and factual accuracy (see point 2 above), as well as affecting stability (see point 5 below).
5. FAIL. It is not stable. 11 edits yesterday (Feb 22) and 3 already today (Feb 23). Although many of the edits improve spelling/grammar/understanding and are expected, some change content (ex: starting lineup changes made yesterday).
6. PASS. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. One image has been added. Comparing this article with last year's Super Bowl XLI, the number and type of images are similar, and I appreciate that desirable images of game situations might violate copyright. I note that at least one image has been removed for copyvio.

Conclusion: There has been very good progress with constructive edits. However, there are still some important weaknesses and I cannot, in good faith, recommend this article for GA status in its current state. Perhaps sometime in the future ... not now. I am therefore declaring that this article FAIL as a GA. Truthanado (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive talk page

This talk page seems to be getting way too long and all but the most recent parts should probably be archived to make it easier to manage. Especially since the article has reached a point where it is mainly being tidied up for GA status. --Finalnight (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ---CWY2190^TC 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Update on GA improvements

Most of the rapid editing has calmed down at this point and it is mostly about dealing with vandals now. I think the improvements are coming along nicely. Keep up the work guys! (Also wanted to create this section so there is a spot to discuss cleanup outside of the formal GA review section)--Finalnight (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)