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

Reviewer: NSNW ( talk · contribs) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! I will be reviewing this nomination soon, will be finished in a few days. NSNW ( talk) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

References:

• [ 1] and [ 3] are twitter posts, which are generally unreliable per WP:Reliable sources, there should be better sources out there.
  • No. 1 replaced; No. 3 was added by another user and I decided to keep it per WP:SELFSOURCE; if you don't think that applies I'll remove it. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'm not an expert on twitter posts but I would prefer a different source, I'm sure sources on who international announcers are that are reliable are out there somewhere. If you have trouble finding any I can help you with that. NSNW ( talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I am indeed having trouble finding something - if you could help out that would be great. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  No worries, I looked over the tweet and have determined it is appropriate in this circumstance. NSNW ( talk) 16:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

* [ 4], [ 5], and [ 6] could be better sources, (I'm unsure if they are reliable or not).

• • Replaced No. 4. 5 and 6 are reliable as far as I know. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• (Reference 13), Is Marca a reliable source? Please explain. Same thing with (Reference 24) with NJ.com.
  • Replaced 13, I believe 24 is reliable. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• (Reference 26), Why is a source from Paris better than a local american source?
  • Paris, Tennessee, not Paris, France. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • My mistake.
• (Reference 34), (Reference 43), and (Reference 45), Why is SB Nation a reliable source?
  • You're right, replaced all three. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• (Reference 57), "Awful Announcing" doesn't sound very reliable.
  • It actually might be, but I replaced it just to be safe. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• (Reference 59), How is Sports Video Group a reliable source?
  • I included that reference because of the graphic (from ESPN, not SVG) that displayed all of the channels and whatnot, though I can try to find a replacement if you want. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• (Reference 61), Same as Ref 59
  • Removed that last sentence, most of the sources I found upon searching looked a little iffy. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Broadness:

• There is barely any information in the "Background" and "College football playoff" sections. Surely there is more information out there about these particular topics. I know GA doesn't require comprehensiveness but I feel like more info should be included in those areas before I pass requirement three.
  • Is there anything in specific you'd recommend putting here? Happy to expand it but I want to make sure we're on the same page. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  A bit more of an explanation on how Lucas Oil Stadium was chosen as the place of the game, (on a side note I am a native Indianan), and maybe some of the preparation for the game in the stadium (the whole section just seems dull). Also on the College football playoff section it would be nice to see some more explanation of the previous playoff games, I see you put some description in the (Alabama) and (Georgia) sub sections, but try to work some of that in there. NSNW ( talk) 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I've been having some computer issues recently so if you could afford me a few more days than normal to make these improvements, I'd appreciate it. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Sure thing, I'll add some more comments while I'm at it. NSNW ( talk) 12:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I added some more background on Lucas Oil in that section and I'll expand the CFP subsection below it later today. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Well done. NSNW ( talk) 16:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  I've given the College Football Playoff section some more background and detail; happy to add more if there's something specific you think would be good to have there. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 06:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ NSNW Hi there - just wanted to give you a quick ping in case you didn't see this last message. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Sorry for the delay! I was in the hospital for a broken toe. I will add more questions now that I can. NSNW ( talk) 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ NSNW I'm terribly sorry about that - hope you're back to feeling better soon! PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 14:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  Ok now that I have fully reviewed the article again I don't see any other problems that need to be addressed. Congrats! NSNW ( talk) 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply

MOS:

Words to watch: