Jump to content

Talk:2024 Rose Bowl/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

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 02:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this! Comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Here are my comments, made some minor copy-edits. Hope they can be addressed! Arconning (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning Everything has been taken care of or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS

[edit]

Lead and infobox

[edit]
  • bowl games which concluded, replace which with that.
  • The winner qualified through to the 2024 College Football Playoff, wondering if this should be ...for the 2024 College Football Playoff?

Background

[edit]
  • No issues, nice work.

Teams

[edit]

Game summary

[edit]
  • After two plays for no gain,, is this an American football term that should be wikilinked?
  • . Michigan took a knee to run the remaining seconds off of the clock and send the game to overtime., "took a knee", same with preceding comment
  • Tables are formatted properly.

Aftermath

[edit]

Images

[edit]
  • All images are relevant to the article and have proper licensing.

Refs

[edit]
  • Earwig's okay.
  • Random ref checks: 1, 14, 21, 24, 37, 43, good.
  • I'd like to question the reliability of 29, Football Zebras. If it's reliable, it should probably use it's name rather than the website to follow consistency with the ref layout

Misc

[edit]
  • No ongoing edit war, broad and focused info, neutral.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.