Jump to content

Talk:2021 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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.


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

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.