# Talk:1981 Peach Bowl (January)

Just a quick note. I'll do the GA review shortly, but before I do, could you make an article on the 1981 Peach Bowl that occurred in December? It just seems off to have a redlinked disambiguation header. It can be a stub, that's fine. Gives you something quick to work on while I review the whole article. Wizardman 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1981 Peach Bowl (January)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
The article is actually really good, there's only a few minor things I'd like to see fixed:

Write an article on the December Peach Bowl (can be a substub, so long as the article exists). Taken care of.
Can the image Image:1970s_Peach_Bowl_logo.jpg be reduced in size? 500x417 is rather big for a logo that only needs to be maybe half that size. Taken care of, nevermind.
Make sure football players with articles are linked (i think i got most of them)
Found a few more. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"From there, it took Miami just four plays to score. Roan ran for seven yards, Kelly completed an 11-yard pass, threw an interception, then Hobbs ran 12 yards for the touchdown." I assume you meant incompletion as opposed to interception? If not I presume the interception was negated somehow, which would need a mention.
Thanks for the catch. It was an incomplete pass.
In the statistical section, you have Miami with 3 turnovers, VT with 1. Elsewhere in the article it says Miami turned it over 4 times, and you mention at least 2 VT interceptions.
Great catch! For whatever reason, my copy of the box score only lists Casey's interception for Tech and doesn't mention Lawrence's errant pass. It's there in the play-by-play, but not in the statistical summary. Interesting. I checked it against my copy of the game tape, though, and the Washington Post story is correct -- Miami had four turnovers and Tech two, off of the two interceptions. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Besides that stuff, this article's well written. The three things left are all minor stuff so getting it handled shouldn't be an issue. Wizardman 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no other issues with the article, so I'll gladly pass it now. :) Wizardman 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)