Talk:2008 Maryland Terrapins football team/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

I have volunteers to review this nomination for good article status. If you have any questions or concerns about this review, let me know. I will be watching this page, so if you have any comments this is the best place to communicate. Overall the article looks good. An article like this can be subject to irrational fan-dom. It looks like this is not a concern with this article. Thanks, Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

Per dabfinder on the toolserver there are three wikilinks that lead to disambiguous pages.

Fixed. Strikehold (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks: ref #28 is dead ("Bowling" from the Balt Sun). If you can replace this reference, great. If not, remove the hyperlink, as you have all the required information.

Considering archiving articles (especially from newspapers, since they go dead quickly) using WebCite. I have done this for articles I didn't want to lose at 2008 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship (see #35). Obviously this is not required, but I find it helpful at times for my articles.

Removed deadlink. Strikehold (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated some redirects & consolidated refs using the link checker tool.
I believe use of reflist|3 is discouraged. I have changed to reflist|2

MOS

Per MOS:ENDASH, it looks like the – usage is sporadic. In the infobox it is used about half the time, then just here and there throughout the rest of the article. Anytime you are using a dash to indicate the word "to" the – should be used. (Eg The final score was 21–14)

I'm not sure where you are referring. I did a quick look through the text, but didn't see any misuses/inconsistent uses of hyphens or endashes. I did replace negative signs with "−" though. Strikehold (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am wrong. I looked at some of the comparable GA/FA articles and noticed that endash was not used as frequently as I thought. For instance, I thought the scores in the CFB Schedule table should have all had endash. I also thought records, Maryland's and their opposition's, should be endash'd. But other articles are not doing this, so we'll move on. Regarding the infobox, I misread the 3-3-5 defense in the text. In passing, did you consider wikilinkg this to American football strategy?

I'm still a little confused. The endash is used throughout the article for scores and records. Are you saying that the wiki mark-up – isn't used, but the endash character is. Doesn't seem important since they are identical. Added a link to 3-3-5. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never realized character existed. Now I see it. I have always used the markup & thought that was the only option. Thanks, Mitico (talk, contribs) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 370 yards, use 370 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 370 yards.

Fixed. Strikehold (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Per Wikipedia:Lead the article should have 3 to 4 paragraphs based on size. Since this article is on the high end, I would recommend a fourth paragraph. In order to summarize the article I would add details addressing awards.

Chaotic -- pov pushing?

Added two references. This is a common belief. I think there were seven of 12 teams still in the running for the ACC championship game berths in the second-to-last week of the regular season. Strikehold (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a start. Within the next day or so, I will do a detail review of the prose. I will work section by section. Any questions, let me know. Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preseason

On the offensive side, the Terps lost - overuse of the word loss in this paragraph. Can this be changed to graduated (assuming they graduated)?

I re-looked at it and think that is the simplest way to phrase it. Seems okay to me; "loss" and "lost" are only used once each in that section. I would advise against graduated since it isn't "the Terps" that actually performed that action. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These included three Scout.com four-star prospects: wide receivers Kenny Tate and Kevin Dorsey, and tight end Matt Furstenburg Is Scout.com needed? Are they the name in college recruiting? Does these players Rivals ranking deserve mention? Consider just saying three highly touted prospects, or something to that effect. Your call.

Scout and Rivals are about equivalent, though of course they vary slightly on their assessments of individuals. I couldn't tell you off-hand what their Rivals ranks were. Figure naming Scout since that is an objective qualifier rather than just simply "highly-ranked".Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Mitico (talk, contribs) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furstenburg burned his redshirt - burned his redshirt? Jargon. Can you explain this out.

Reworded. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postseason

He was tapped by recently re-hired head coach Bill Snyder - tapped sounds jargon-y. Recommend changing to He was reunited with recently hired head coach Bill Snyder

Reworded. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He played at Clemson as a unclear who "he" is --> Pearman? Why so much detail about Swinny. I think these couple sentences could be shortened to Pearman, a tight end at Clemson from 1984 to 1987, was a coach at Alabama while Swinney was a wide receiver on the team.

Reworded. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland's third-year intern Brian White will fill in as interim tight ends coach for the bowl game and assisted head coach Friedgen in directing the special teams. - tense

Fixed. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Cardinals rejected the proposal who are the Cardinals? This is the first introduction to this nickname.

Reworded. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule

As per conference rules, - As per sounds awkward. How about "In accordace with..."

Sounds alright to me. It's also more concise. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roster

Starting quarterback Jordan Steffy was knocked out for the season in the first game. ~~I like the play on words here, but could you specify "head injury" or "concussion."~~ Oh wait, it was a thumb injury, why did I think it was a head injury? Also, a cite here would be helpful.

Heh, no pun intended. You probably thought it was a concussion because he was concussed in the 2007 Rutgers game which put him out for the rest of that season. The poor guy has literally had like five or six concussions since high school. Added a cite. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game notes

In the box scores, my opinion is that Maryland should be used in place of Terps. It will match the opposing team's name (e.g. Delaware, not Blue Hens), and to me, is more formal. Using Terps throughout the article is fine, but the box scores just seems odd to me. I see the comparable article use the nicknames as you have, so I will leave this as a comment and say the decision is up to you.

Agreed, I've made the change. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleware

In 2007, Turner had taken passive - took

That's actually past perfect tense, not passive voice. It denotes that something in the past happened before something else in the past tense--like the past tense for the past tense. Still, it can be changed to "took" since the timeline is established by "in 2007". Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I intended "In 2007, Turner took..." I changed it to read that way. If you want to change it to the original, that's okay. Mitico (talk, contribs) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail in the opening paragraph about Delaware. I would cut the sentence that reads: That year, the Blue Hens had beaten Division I FBS Navy in a high-scoring match-up, 59–52, and had scored in excess of 40 points in seven of their 15 games. The previous sentence sets up that they were good, and the next discusses the off-season roster changes. Seems like enough.

I've trimmed it a bit.

Just a comment ... details for this game seem like more than for other games.
In the third quarter, Turner threw an interception that was returned 25 yards to the Maryland five yard-line~~, and then~~ that was subsequently ran in for a touchdown. On the next possession, Turner then completed a short toss to Darrius Heyward-Bey who ran it downfield for an 80-yard touchdown.

Re-worded. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clemson

In the second half, the Terrapins began with a series that fizzled out can you replace fizzled with something less jargon?

Reworded.

BC

With 0:14 remaining on the clock, Boston College ran out the clock and ended the game 21–28 Is the time important here?

Ah. It would have been if I had put the part about the onside kick. Fixed. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

This article has a trajectory towards FA. My observations of that process leads me to think that the lack of multiple images, and possibly the length of the TOC can be issues there. As far a GA, I think if you expand the lead just a little & address some of the prose issues it is ready to go. If you disagree with any of my comments above let me know. Mitico (talk, contribs) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the article I belive this article meets all the criteria of a good article. Great work Strikehold! Any questions, let me know. -Mitico (talk, contribs) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]