Talk:2022 Cure Bowl

2022 Cure Bowl was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 5, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 1, 2023.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 2022 Cure Bowl is the only one of the 2022–23 NCAA football bowl games scheduled to be played between FBS conference champions?

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

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Bruxton (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the 2022 Cure Bowl is the only one of the 2022–23 NCAA football bowl games to be played between FBS conference champions?
- ALT1: ... that the 2022 Cure Bowl is the only one of the 2022–23 NCAA football bowl games scheduled to be played between FBS conference champions? Source: WTVY
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Moore (officer)

Expanded 5× by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 19:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good article with an interesting hook, meets all requirements aside from QPQ. I will say that there is a possibility that the 2022 College Football Playoff National Championship might pit the Big 10 and SEC champions against one another, so maybe a better phrasing of the hook could include "scheduled" after "games" and before "to be played". JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JJonahJackalope: Thank you for the review! QPQ has been provided and ALT1 hook added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS Thanks, just updated the review, should be good to go! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Cure Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Hi. Just to let you know that the review is done and the article has been placed on hold.

@PCN02WPS: Hello, more than 7 days have passed since I've put the article on hold. Please try to address the suggestions as quickly as possible, otherwise I'll have to fail the article. Many thanks. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to get to this as soon as I finish up with the Gasparilla Bowl review. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, since so many days have passed and no improvements have been made; I'll have to fail this article. If you want, when you have more time, you can renominate it and continue the review where it we left. It was nice working with you. The Blue Rider

08:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Per MOS:INTRO, the lead section should be accessible to a broad audience. The 2nd paragraph has way too much football terminology, I couldn't understand whole sentences. If possible, try to substitute jargon like punt, drive, fumble, safety and turnover to layman's terms. Sponsored by workwear company Duluth Holdings Inc... This sentence is too wordy, it needs to be rewritten. Something like this would work, The 2022 Cure Bowl, officially known as Duluth Trading Cure Bowl for sponsorship reasons,... ...against No. 24 Houston..., ...with a loss at No. 21 Texas... does No.24 and No.21 mean their table positions? If so, why only these two teams have their table position? This sentence is confusing, ...the Trojans traveled to Louisiana, whom they defeated by a touchdown... It may read to some that Louisiana refers to the state and not the football team, I suggest Louisiana to be replaced with Cajuns, Ragin' Cajuns or whatever the team might be commonly called. This good field position benefitted Troy. «good» here is futile, if it benefitted Troy its then implicit that the field position was good. I suggest its removal. Their nonconference schedule complete, the Roadrunners began... Shouldn't be With their nonconference...?	ω Awaiting
(b) (MoS)	...representing Conference USA (C–USA), began. The wikilink from «Conference USA» is repeated, remove it. ...representing the Sun Belt Conference. The wikilink from «Sun Belt Conference» is also repeated. Based on conference tie-ins... wikilink to «tie-in». The UTSA special teams was... wikilink to «special team». UTSA took a knee to take... wikilink to «took a knee». ...but an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty... wikilink to «unsportsmanlike». ...and umpire Ian Malepleai wikilink to «umpire». Per MOS:LEADCITE, inline citations in the lead section should be avoided if possible. The two inline citations in The game began at 3:07 p.m. EST and aired on ESPN... should then be removed, since the content is already covered in another source further down in the article.	ω Awaiting

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Checked references #1, #2, #3, #4, #12, #15, #22, #39 and #41 of this version. Isn't there an official ESPN source for the referee instead of the #3 source (Football Zebras)? The #4 source (College Football Poll) doesn't seem reliable for that kind of information. The #12 source (KSAT) doesn't state that it was UTSA first win.	ω Awaiting
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The game was played at Exploria Stadium in Orlando, Florida, and weather at kickoff was sunny with a temperature of 66 °F (19 °C). This needs an inline citation. The game ended with a final score of Troy 18, UTSA 12, at 6:47 p.m. EST, after a total duration of three hours and 39 minutes. This also needs an inline citation. ...leading UTSA into their homecoming contest against the North Texas Mean Green. This also needs an inline citation. The attendance number stated in the infobox needs a source.	ω Awaiting
(c) (original research)	After the Roadrunners gained only one total yard on their next three plays, they were forced to attempt another fourth down conversion, and this one was also unsuccessful.. This might be original research but I know nothing about this sport. Is the team obliged to do a fourth down conversion or do they have more options of possible plays?	ω Awaiting
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig's Copyvio Detector says violation unlikely (5,7%).	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	...the game usually features teams from the Mid-American Conference and the Sun Belt Conference; however, this season's matchup featured a team from Conference USA. Why was a team from Conference USA picked instead of one from Mid-American Conference? An explanation should be in the article. The game ended with a final score of Troy 18, UTSA 12.... I think it should be explicit which team won the Cup. A post-match section should be included in the article. Don't forget to update the lead afterwards.	ω Awaiting
(b) (focused)	...in a game visited by College GameDay. Why is the fact that College GameDay broadcasted that specific game relevant to the article? If it isn't, I advise its removal. Their last game in October was a Thursday night contest... The exact day of the week and time of the day of this specific Troy's game isn't pertinent. It would be better if removed.	ω Awaiting

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
...began their season with a thrilling triple-overtime..., «thrilling» is a peacock term, it needs to be removed. Dominant wins over Louisiana Tech and Rice followed..., «dominant» is also a peacock term. ...regular season with a pair of convincing wins..., «convincing» is also a peacock term. ...their offense gained only four yards..., «only» is a word to be watched and its use here constitutes original research, since its not supported by sources. It needs to be removed. ...the Roadrunners were similarly unproductive as they gained..., the above logic also applies to «similarly unproductive». Removed all. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	ω Awaiting

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Everything peaceful	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	This article could benefit from images. Captain, head coach and stadium photos would be great.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	The reviewer has left no comments here

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]