Talk:Buccaneers–Packers rivalry

Buccaneers–Packers rivalry 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: January 5, 2024. (Reviewed version).

National Football League Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL 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.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Green Bay Packers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Bay Packers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Green Bay Packers 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.Green Bay PackersWikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay PackersTemplate:WikiProject Green Bay PackersGreen Bay Packers articles
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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tampa Bay (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa BayWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa BayTemplate:WikiProject Tampa BayTampa Bay articles

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay Buccaneers, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa Bay BuccaneersWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa Bay BuccaneersTemplate:WikiProject Tampa Bay BuccaneersTampa Bay Buccaneers articles

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Buccaneers–Packers rivalry appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 December 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that despite being rivals since 1977, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Green Bay Packers have only played each other twice in the playoffs, with each team winning once?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Buccaneers–Packers rivalry.

Wikipedia

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 18:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that despite being rivals since 1977, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Green Bay Packers have only played each other twice in the playoffs, with each team winning once? Source: FootballDB.com summarizes all the games played, with the two playoff games highlight by an asterisk and a cross
- Reviewed: 2023 UK Championship

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Buccaneers–Packers rivalry; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2023 (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: Only one issue noticed; @Gonzo fan2007: In the lead, it states The loss was part of the Buccaneers 0–14 record in 1976, the first time an NFL team lost every game in their season. Off the top of my head I know that last part is incorrect: many early teams, e.g. the 1926 Louisville Colonels, lost all of their games in a season. How do you think this should be re-worded? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, Good catch! I reworded the lead to match the body of the article and the source (the first time it happened in a 14-game season). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Special Date Request: the Packers and Buccaneers play each other on December 17, could this be placed on the main page that day please. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Theleekycauldron and Bruxton: (the two best DYK promoters that come to mind) - informing you both that this is requested to be featured on December 17. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Nice, thanks for the compliment. I will look for an open slot and check this out for promotion. Bruxton (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. -- ZooBlazer 20:19, 5 January 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:Buccaneers–Packers rivalry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. I'll try to have it done in the next day or two. From a quick glance the article looks like it's in pretty good shape already. -- ZooBlazer 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZooBlazer, thanks for the review and happy to work with you on any improvements. No rush, I am generally available :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job overall! I didn't find any major issues. Mostly minor things with some that could also be considered nitpicks. Once you address the issues below I'll do spotchecks. -- ZooBlazer 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

{{Photo montage|size=300|photo1b=David Martin82 Brett Favre4-Edit2.jpg|photo1a=Warren Sapp2.jpg|align=center|color=white| border = 0}} - Is there a reason 1b comes before 1a when every other instance of the images is Sapp's image being on the left/first?
- Not really. I swapped it while making other edits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the actual failed invasion of Cuba during the Cold War of the same name and the fact that - A command needs added after "name"
- I reworded the whole sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Packers saw a revival, making the playoffs for eight straight seasons - Maybe it's more of a nitpick, but I'd suggest removing "for"
- Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Buccaneers and Packers played each other twice a season from 1977 to 2001 - Change it to twice per season
- Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the Packers, led by quarterback Don Majkowski drove down the field in time for a walk-off field goal by kicker Chris Jacke. - Need a comma after Majkowski
- Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also change either the beginning of this sentence or the beginning of the sentence in the next paragraph so they don't both start with "however"
- Deleted the second instance. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brett Favre and Reggie White led the team to six straight playoffs - Change to six straight playoff appearances
- Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Or reword the sentence differently due to the next part being including a victory in Super Bowl XXXI and another appearance in Super Bowl XXXII.. That way you don't have appearance/appearances so close together. I'll let you decide.
- Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Buccaneers only made the playoffs twice between 2003 and 2019.[15][14] - Flip the refs so they're in numerical order
- Flipped. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Packers defense shut out the Buccaneers 13–0, recording three interceptions and one block - What kind of block? Punt? Field goal?
- Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Buccaneers and Packers played to their first and—as of 2022—only tie of the series. - Update to 2023. Also update it again after the game recap, although is it needed twice in the same section?
- Updated date. Two different comments. The first stating it is the only tie in the rivalry, the second stating that the Buccaneers have only played to one tie in their franchise history (which just so happens to be this game). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Packers newly signed placekicker Tom Birney - Change it to newly signed Packers placekicker
- Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with another 4 inches falling during the game - Change to four
- Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
reaching their second straight Super Bowl.[45] The Packers would end up losing to the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII.[46] - You can probably just combine these sentences
- Combined. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of your comments ZooBlazer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo_fan2007 Everything looks good to go! -- ZooBlazer 20:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all properly licensed
Spotchecks - Ref numbers are accurate as of this edit
- Randomly checked refs #4, #16, #25, #46, and #52. All support the information they are supposed to in the article.
Plagiarism check - Earwig detected no issues

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.