![]() | 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship 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: February 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Regarding this edit by Special:Contributions/174.27.77.115: A significant number of sources mention the CFP Championship in the context of the sign stealing scandal. Not having a mention would be a complete oversight and not following the sources. The IP editor's claim that "Just because it has sources, doesn’t make it relevant" is obviously nonsense. What is relevant is determined by following how WP:RS's discuss the game per WP:DUE. Cerebral726 ( talk) 16:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
5x expanded by PCN02WPS ( talk). Self-nominated at 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2024 College Football Playoff National Championship; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
full review needed.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her) 02:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bruxton ( talk · contribs) 01:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article. Bruxton ( talk) 01:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Completed items
|
---|
Lead
Spelling/other
@ Bruxton: Thanks for taking this review! Everything above either changed or responded to. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
The 23 images and logo appear to be properly licensed and free.
Bruxton (
talk) 04:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
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. | Yes |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
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. | Yes |
![]() |
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). | Yes |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
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. | Yes |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Good article! |
PK-WIKI, per your latest edit on this article, is there a difference between an "consensus" and "outright". The infobox at 1948 Michigan Wolverines football team says "consensus". College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS lists no other champion besides Michigan for 1948. The term "outright" is most often used with conference championships to denote that the title was not shared by two or more teams. When "outright" is used to described national championships, I think it's meant to denote that the national title was not split between the two major polls, AP and Coaches. Of course, from 1936 to 1949, there was only one major poll, the AP. Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship 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: February 6, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Regarding this edit by Special:Contributions/174.27.77.115: A significant number of sources mention the CFP Championship in the context of the sign stealing scandal. Not having a mention would be a complete oversight and not following the sources. The IP editor's claim that "Just because it has sources, doesn’t make it relevant" is obviously nonsense. What is relevant is determined by following how WP:RS's discuss the game per WP:DUE. Cerebral726 ( talk) 16:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
5x expanded by PCN02WPS ( talk). Self-nominated at 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2024 College Football Playoff National Championship; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
full review needed.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her) 02:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bruxton ( talk · contribs) 01:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article. Bruxton ( talk) 01:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Completed items
|
---|
Lead
Spelling/other
@ Bruxton: Thanks for taking this review! Everything above either changed or responded to. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
The 23 images and logo appear to be properly licensed and free.
Bruxton (
talk) 04:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
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. | Yes |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
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. | Yes |
![]() |
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). | Yes |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
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. | Yes |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Good article! |
PK-WIKI, per your latest edit on this article, is there a difference between an "consensus" and "outright". The infobox at 1948 Michigan Wolverines football team says "consensus". College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS lists no other champion besides Michigan for 1948. The term "outright" is most often used with conference championships to denote that the title was not shared by two or more teams. When "outright" is used to described national championships, I think it's meant to denote that the national title was not split between the two major polls, AP and Coaches. Of course, from 1936 to 1949, there was only one major poll, the AP. Jweiss11 ( talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)