This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Super Bowl XLII article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Super Bowl XLII was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
I suggest that we wait until things settle down and the above items are corrected. Truthanado ( talk) 16:57, 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
However, after the play had been run, Patriots' head coach Bill Belichick challenged that New York had too many players on the field and replay confirmed that was the case as Giants linebacker Chase Blackburn was unable to get to the sidelines as the ball was being snapped. Therefore, referee Mike Carey reversed the play, and the Giants were penalized 5 yards for having too many players on the field, giving the Patriots a first down. I am not a fan of either team (go Chargers!), and I rarely watch football, but that particular play and the follow up to it is something I and many others remember a bit differently than this article suggests. While I understand keeping an article neutral, a dis-service is done by not mentioning that it was half of one foot on the field, and only that because Brady moved the play fast to try to catch him. Is there not a place for a "GA" to mention controversies surrounding the game at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlamere ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Brady wasn't even on the field. If my memory serves me right, it was a punt. 76.106.203.88 ( talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I took out a section about a disgruntled man who threatened to shoot people at the game, but in the end decided not to, and he turned himself in to the police. It seems a little like a "dog doesn't bite man" story of the sort which happens at all major events, and in any case its inclusion just encourages copycats. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll be doing the Good Article review for this article. I've just scanned the article so far, but here are some general things to fix before I thoroughly read the article:
That's it for now. I'll be back later with more specific changes to make. Nikki 311 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the article again, there is just too much unsourced content...so I'm going to fail the article. Here are some more specific things to change or consider before another nomination:
I hope this helps. I understand how frustrating it can be to have an article fail multiple times. Keep trying and good luck! Nikki 311 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What does it mean "break the record with the 16-0?" The Dolphins went 17-0 a couple years ago and the Pats went 18-0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.79.163 ( talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
After the discussion of the "Helmet Catch," this article states: Manning and the Giants were not called for holding and this kept the Giants hopes alive. I do not question the truth of this statement; however, this sentence is either superfluous or is an implication that perhaps the Giants should have been called for holding during the play. The latter is fine if objective commentators saying this can be sourced. If not, this sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.69.184 ( talk) 08:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This is at the end of the introduction:
"For people in New York City, the Giants' Super Bowl win, like most other sports championship victories there, drew the largest television audience for a game in the league involved and/or sports show on the network(s) that broadcast it, as evidenced by the New York Mets World Series win in 1986 and the New York Rangers Stanley Cup win in 1994."
173.71.152.154 ( talk) 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing I don't understand here - in the opening text it says "was a rematch of the final game of the regular season. In that game, the Patriots won 38–35" - then "Thus, New England entered Super Bowl XLII as 13 to 14-point favorites" - why were they 13 point favourites, when only a few weeks ago they'd won by just 3 points? 188.221.79.22 ( talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Super-Bowl-XLII-diagram-by-Chartball.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Super-Bowl-XLII-diagram-by-Chartball.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Super Bowl XLII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Super Bowl XLII. 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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Super Bowl XLII article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Super Bowl XLII was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
I suggest that we wait until things settle down and the above items are corrected. Truthanado ( talk) 16:57, 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
However, after the play had been run, Patriots' head coach Bill Belichick challenged that New York had too many players on the field and replay confirmed that was the case as Giants linebacker Chase Blackburn was unable to get to the sidelines as the ball was being snapped. Therefore, referee Mike Carey reversed the play, and the Giants were penalized 5 yards for having too many players on the field, giving the Patriots a first down. I am not a fan of either team (go Chargers!), and I rarely watch football, but that particular play and the follow up to it is something I and many others remember a bit differently than this article suggests. While I understand keeping an article neutral, a dis-service is done by not mentioning that it was half of one foot on the field, and only that because Brady moved the play fast to try to catch him. Is there not a place for a "GA" to mention controversies surrounding the game at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlamere ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Brady wasn't even on the field. If my memory serves me right, it was a punt. 76.106.203.88 ( talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I took out a section about a disgruntled man who threatened to shoot people at the game, but in the end decided not to, and he turned himself in to the police. It seems a little like a "dog doesn't bite man" story of the sort which happens at all major events, and in any case its inclusion just encourages copycats. Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll be doing the Good Article review for this article. I've just scanned the article so far, but here are some general things to fix before I thoroughly read the article:
That's it for now. I'll be back later with more specific changes to make. Nikki 311 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the article again, there is just too much unsourced content...so I'm going to fail the article. Here are some more specific things to change or consider before another nomination:
I hope this helps. I understand how frustrating it can be to have an article fail multiple times. Keep trying and good luck! Nikki 311 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What does it mean "break the record with the 16-0?" The Dolphins went 17-0 a couple years ago and the Pats went 18-0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.79.163 ( talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
After the discussion of the "Helmet Catch," this article states: Manning and the Giants were not called for holding and this kept the Giants hopes alive. I do not question the truth of this statement; however, this sentence is either superfluous or is an implication that perhaps the Giants should have been called for holding during the play. The latter is fine if objective commentators saying this can be sourced. If not, this sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.69.184 ( talk) 08:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This is at the end of the introduction:
"For people in New York City, the Giants' Super Bowl win, like most other sports championship victories there, drew the largest television audience for a game in the league involved and/or sports show on the network(s) that broadcast it, as evidenced by the New York Mets World Series win in 1986 and the New York Rangers Stanley Cup win in 1994."
173.71.152.154 ( talk) 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing I don't understand here - in the opening text it says "was a rematch of the final game of the regular season. In that game, the Patriots won 38–35" - then "Thus, New England entered Super Bowl XLII as 13 to 14-point favorites" - why were they 13 point favourites, when only a few weeks ago they'd won by just 3 points? 188.221.79.22 ( talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Super-Bowl-XLII-diagram-by-Chartball.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Super-Bowl-XLII-diagram-by-Chartball.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Super Bowl XLII. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Super Bowl XLII. 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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)