This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football 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.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I really do not feel like the game summary section is neutral to any extent, and much of it is original research. Several examples:
"It was evident from the warm-ups prior to the game: one team came to hit and play, one merely showed up." (According to who?)
"The Alabama players, disheartened at the loss of Outland Trophy winner Andre Smith, were caught flatfooted by the fast and precise Utes."
"The Tide, having underestimated Utah and suffering letdowns emotionally after the Florida loss and the attrition to their O-Line, could not recover mentally in this game."
"Alabama fans honorably congratulated their tormentors..."
"...leaving Utah fans to exult in the best season their team has ever had."
I'm tempted to remove the entire section (mainly added by Mbobmean), which I feel may just be vandalism to see what he could put on here before it was removed. If any of these things are true, they all definitely need sources per WP:V. – LATICS talk 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
While I generally agree with what's written in the game summary, it's not encyclopedic and should be removed. Ndenisontalk 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
As someone who's written a lot of similar articles, I'd have to agree that it's really NPOV. That said, it's a fun bit of sportswriting. It just doesn't work for Wikipedia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not saying the summary is incorrect or anything, as much as I hate to admit it. But yeah, it's far from being an encyclopedic read. – LATICS talk 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)