Jump to content

Talk:2021 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article was featured on ITN, making it ineligible for DYK.

(
)

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk) and GoWarriors151718 (talk). Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk) at 00:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi PCN02WPS, unfortunately this article is not eligible for DYK as it has been featured as a bold link in the "In the news" (ITN) section of the main page (it is currently the top item). This is per rule 1d of the DYK rules. On the plus side the article will feature in ITN for a number of days and receive greater prominence than if it had been in DYK alone - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:21, 10 March 2023 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 19:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review added below. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: Just a reminder that this has been on hold for over a week now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias Sorry about that - I will make my best effort to get to this later today. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias I think I've addressed everything, I'd appreciate another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: Nice work. Only outstanding actionable point for GA is the use of the term "bid", which I don't think a layperson (by which I mean me...) would understand in this context. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias ah, that is a very fair point. Your guess that it means "invitation" is correct, so I've switched both instances of "bid" to "invitation". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No concerns.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Be consistent between "ESPN.com" or "ESPN" as the website title.
  • Remove "| NCAA.com" from the title for ref #3, ad consider changing the website title to "NCAA".
  • Add dates of publication for the University of Arizona Athletics refs (#9, 10, 12)
  • Add dates of publication for the Stanford University Athletics refs (#18, 19, 20, 21, 26)
  • Add a date of publication for ref #23.
  • Add a date of publication for ref #25.
  • Add a date of publication and author details for ref #27.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). No concerns.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • The time given for the game is "5:00 pm CDT", but the time given in the source is "11:00 PM".
    • Where do you see that? When I click on the "Box score" link, and scroll down to "Game Information", I see "6:00 PM, April 4, 2021" (I'm in Eastern, so 6:00 p.m. here is 5:00 p.m. Central)
      • Okay, I'm in GMT, so that makes sense. But it isn't obvious from the source that it is providing the time in your local time zone. Nevertheless, this falls close to "sky is blue" territory, so I'm not going to push it. Harrias
  • Where are the uniform designs sourced to?
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Consider adding some of the details from the game template into the prose, such as where the game was played, when it was and what time it started. These all appear in the lead, so would be good to include in the body prose.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No concerns.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No concerns.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Other than the uniforms, no media present; no issues.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Other than the uniforms, no media present; no issues.
7. Overall assessment. Generally a decent article, but it suffers from heavy jargon usage, and a fair few of the references need tidying up. I'll stick it on hold for the time being.
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

[edit]
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 BorgQueen (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by PCN02WPS (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2021 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Thriley and Cielquiparle: I've added a mention in the article now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT0 on the basis that the fact has been added to the article, and the claim can be inferred from the source (which lists the previous six finals featuring two teams from the same conference, and none of them are Pac-12. Striking ALT1 on the basis that there were two !votes against it as the less interesting hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_NCAA_Division_I_women%27s_basketball_championship_game&oldid=1243908690"