Talk:Super Bowl XXXIV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former featured article candidateSuper Bowl XXXIV is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 30, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
WikiProject iconLos Angeles Rams Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Los Angeles Rams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Los Angeles Rams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Los Angeles RamsWikipedia:WikiProject Los Angeles RamsTemplate:WikiProject Los Angeles RamsLos Angeles Rams articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Los Angeles Rams tasks to be done:

Articles that need some attention.

Past peer reviews to help improve articles.

  • Collection of peer reviews
    .

Other tasks not article related.

older entries

Now why on Earth would this article be in the category "Dot-com"? Removing it, anyone with a reason otherwise can reinstate it. Danthemankhan 22:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Because of the adverts. The game was held during the height of the dot-com boom, so it is unsurprising that many of the adverts during half time were for dot-com companies. Pets.com famously paid millions for an advert featuring a sock puppet. Edward 07:38, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Dot-com advert featuring guys sitting on a porch

Hi. I seem to recall one of the dot-com adverts was two guys sitting on a porch in rocking chairs for about 25 seconds, and then in the last 5 seconds saying something like, "Do we know what we're doing here?" "I sure hope so, we spent a lot of money for this ad." Does anyone remember which company that was? Btw Superbowl 34 was a great game, the Titans QB was awesome. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember that one as well, but like you I can't remember the company. That just proves that it wasn't an effective ad, considering the fact that neither of us can remember then company name :).--J.a.f.a.c. 05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

here
for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • See the "Commercials" section. How are the company's fates relevant?
  • "NY Giants" - this needs to be "New York Giants"
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
    Although not required, see if you can find any more refs.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  • "The game featured many great performances from players on both teams" - this doesn't seem to be NPOV.
  • "Torry Holt was also a major deep threat" - is this NPOV? I'm not sure
  • "The Rams' defense did not get as much attention as the offense, but it was still extremely strong" - may not be NPOV
  • "the Rams had 3 extremely talented linebackers" - not NPOV
  • "after playing before sparse Houston crowds" - I don't think sparse is NPOV.
  • "The 1999 Titans were led by two stars" - maybe not NPOV, not 100% sure
  • "McNair was also an outstanding scrambler" - maybe not NPOV
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Looks stable
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :
    Images are fine
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Right now, fail; if you fix these things, it might pass. Sorry for messing up the numbering, that was because of the bullets. Good luck improving the article

  jj137 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with everything suggested. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for

six good article criteria
:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Looks like a good article overall. I'm passing it because it meets the requirements and there are no major issues with it. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.—   jj137 (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA delisted

I see this article is at FAC. However, many of the issues raised there (

H2O) 00:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with this delisting. Furthermore, I ask that the nominator withdraw the FAC within a few days after you receive a few more comments (I didn't look through the prose, so I might have missed some issues). I suggest you go to
peer review afterwards. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn and archived; per

WP:FAC/ar, pls wait for GimmeBot to update the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No turnovers?

Just a question here - I'm not entirely sure of the official rules, so perhaps someone can explain this or correct me here - but in the 3rd quarter the Titans had a field goal blocked before the line - and it was then recovered by the Rams. Now as I understand it, a field goal blocked before the line is a fumble - so why is this not a fumble recovery (making a turnover)? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a field goal that is blocked before the line of scrimmage is still literally considered a "blocked field goal", not a
loose balls" that can be recovered by either team. A more recent example that comes to my mind was this blocked field goal return for a touchdown during the 49ers-Vikings game on September 27, 2009; it was still scored as a "return of a blocked field goal", not a fumble return. I think this confusion comes in when some fans and broadcast announcers tend to group any type of "loose ball", "muffed punt" or "turnover on downs" as turnovers, even though they are not officially scored that way. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the clarification 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 16:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 14:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Super Bowl XXXIV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who actually won.

This article states the LA Rams And the St Louis Rams won. Are they the same team. Why do they have different names. 198.48.172.115 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Bowl_XXXIV&oldid=1206615124"