Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Peer review/2007 Fiesta Bowl

2007 Fiesta Bowl

Looking to get this article up to GA quality. Any tips would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at
  [?]
• If there is not a
  [?]
• Per
  [?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at
  [?]
• There are a few occurrences of
  WP:AWT
  . Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper
    [?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
  [?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ↔NMajdan•talk 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wafulz

• The article is full of
  appropriate tone
  . For example: "Oklahoma was the designated home team and was favored by 7½ points, but in a classic battle, the Broncos won in overtime, 43-42" should be "Oklahoma was the designated home team and was favored by 7½ points, but the Broncos won in overtime, 43-42"
• The majority of the third sentence is not needed. Just tell us relevant facts- we don't need to know everything about the Fiesta Bowl to find out who is playing. We have Fiesta Bowl for that.
• The lead is too short. See
  WP:LEAD
  .
• Avoid phrases like "many felt" and "some say". These are weasel words again.
• Try to write it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a news feature.
• Does the new stadium needs its own section?
• "Game legacy" should be replaced with "Game summary." It should really be shorted- it's not supposed to be a full play-by-play
• Rename the section "OT" to "Overtime". Non-sports fans may not understand what's going on.
• Get rid of personal commentary like "She seemed surprised, but enthusiastically accepted". Just say she accepted.
• Remove most of the "Instant classic" section. This is speculation and opinion, which is
  not allowed
• "Final game facts" is not necessary. Redundant material should be removed, and other material should be merged into the rest of the article.
• The "Reaction" section has too many quotes. Try and summarize opinions.
• fair use rationale
  .

This article has a ways to go before being a