Talk:2014–15 College Football Playoff

2014–15 College Football Playoff has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 16, 2024. (Reviewed version).

College football High‑importance

	College football portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

A fact from 2014–15 College Football Playoff appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 January 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that one writer criticized the College Football Playoff system before its first edition had even begun?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2014–15 College Football Playoff.

Wikipedia

GA Review

Passed.
Well done PCN02WPS. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 22:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014–15 College Football Playoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stable?

Yes Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

Earwig shows a 14.5% due to the names of the teams. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources(2)

sources are styled well.
all sources are reliable.
~~doing a spot check of all the sources in 4 rounds.~~ Spot check is a pass

Round 1

[25]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.N 3rd mention. leaning Y

Removed second mention. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[20].Y
[28].? Can't access
[7].Y
[1].Y
[30]. 1st mention.? 2nd mention.Y

Round 2

[22].Y
[13]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
[5].Y
[9].Y
[33].Y
[12]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
[31].N I don't see where is the fact in this source that the game ended with an interception.

Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[3].Y
[14]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
[16].Y

Round 3

[2].Y
[4].Y
[6].Y
[8].Y
[10].Y
[11].Y
[15].Y
[17].Y
[18].Y
[19].Y

Prose

Later that week, No. 3 Auburn defeated No. 4 Ole Miss, 35–31, in what the Associated Press called "the first College Football Playoff knockout game". does the period need to be outside the quote?
- Yes, see MOS:LQ. Full stop goes outside the quotes in this instance because only a sentence fragment is being quoted. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 101st Rose Bowl, it was the first in which a team scored more than 50 points, and it marked the end of the Seminoles' 29-game unbeaten streak. --> The 101st Rose Bowl was the first Rose Bowl in which a team scored more than 50 points. The game marked the end of the Seminoles' 29-game winning streak.
- Changed instead to The game was the 101st edition of the Rose Bowl and the first in which a team scored more than 50 points. It also marked the end of the Seminoles' 29-game unbeaten streak. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Cos ^{(X + Z)} 02:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CosXZ Just wanted to check up on this and the reviews for the 2015–16 and 2016–17 playoff articles. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS, Promoting this article. Will continue with the rest of the reviews. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 22:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 20:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the championship game of the inaugural College Football Playoff was the most-watched cable television broadcast in history? Source: https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-releases/2015/01/college-football-playoff-national-championship-espn/
- ALT1: ... that Alabama, Florida State, Ohio State, and Oregon participated in the inaugural College Football Playoff?
- ALT2: ... that the first game of the inaugural College Football Playoff was the first edition of the Rose Bowl in which a team scored more than fifty points?
- ALT3: ... that one writer criticized the College Football Playoff system before its first edition had even begun? Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/12/07/college-football-playoff-no-way-to-determine-a-national-champion/
- ALT4: ... that one writer criticized the College Football Playoff selection committee even before they had revealed the field of teams for the first edition of the tournament? Source: Same as ALT3
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/NCAA Season 7 basketball tournaments, Template:Did you know nominations/Amata of Assisi

Improved to Good Article status by PCN02WPS (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 82 past nominations.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Should it be specified to be American history? The current wording is vague and doesn't state if it was worldwide or just in the US. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narutolovehinata5: the source wording is a little vague as well: Ohio State’s 42-20 victory over Oregon at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas – averaged 33,395,000 viewers and an 18.2 US household rating, according to Nielsen, delivering both the largest audience and highest rating in cable television history. The Nielsen rating is definitely US-only and I think the same is true for the viewers but it's not explicitly stated one way or the other. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is an exceptional claim and given with the circumstances it will almost certainly find scrutiny on WT:DYK and/or WP:ERRORS, it may be for the best to propose a new hook using a totally different angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed now that additional hooks have been proposed; as this is the oldest nom on T:TDYK, I may take this on myself if Lily Phillips is kept.--Laun chba ller 15:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long enough, new enough. QPQ is done and I see nothing that would demand a maintenance template. I don't find ALT1 interesting (the playoff is always going to comprise teams from somewhere) and ALT2 would need an end-of-sentence citation and depends on knowing what the Rose Bowl is. I saw the word 'controversy' in the article; perhaps you could propose a hook based on that?--Laun chba ller 21:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Please address the above.--Laun chba ller 14:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does linking Rose Bowl not serve as an explainer for what the Rose Bowl is? In any event I have added ALT3 and ALT4. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does; however a broad audience won't click on it without already knowing. ALT3 is considerably tighter than ALT4 and I am approving only that one.--Laun chba ller 16:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]