Jump to content

Talk:2013 Cotton Bowl Classic/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Mostly fine. Any errors are minor and probably preferential.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are a couple sections that need citations. The second paragraphs of both the Texas A&M and Oklahoma sections need citations since they are statistics or facts. The first two on each of those are fine.  Done --Go Phightins! 01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article covers all required information and stays on topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No issues here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars of note. Article is stable and unlikely to change.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Quick passing as there are no images.
  7. Overall: I will pass this once the citation issues are fixed. Passed! Good job, and keep up the good work. :)
    Pass/Fail: