Talk:2014 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game

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 SL93 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that UConn won its record ninth national championship by defeating Notre Dame in the 2014 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game? Source: UConn women rout Notre Dame 79-58, win 9th title

• ALT1: ... that the 2014 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game, held between UConn and Notre Dame, was the first to feature two undefeated teams? Source: NCAA Women's Final Matches Two Undefeated Teams
• Reviewed: Deborah Schembri

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 21:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC).

• Article is long enough (2814 characters), new enough (created 4 April, nominated same day), article does not contain copyvios
• ? PCN02WPS The section "UConn" is unsourced, please can you add sources to that section? I assume the sources already exists in the team season article, but need to be in this article too. Also, it would be nice to have a text summary of the game, as currently this an article about a game which has very little information about the game itself (apart from the lineups and scorecard). Finally, the "Starting lineups" table violates MOS:COLOR, in particular "Do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." Whilst the colour issue won't stop this DYK from passing, it would be nice to fix.
• Putting this nomination on hold until issues are fixed, will conduct rest of the review once it is. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Joseph2302, thanks sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. Sources have been added to the UConn section, colors have been simplified (and WNBA Draft picks further explained in prose in that section), and a prose game summary has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Joseph2302 SL93 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Upon re-reading my last message, I realized I missed a few words; they have been corrected. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, this slipped my mind:

• Y Article is now within policy, now that issues highlighted above have been fixed. Looks a lots better now, thanks
• Y Hooks are short enough, interesting, in the article and well cited. Either is fine to use
• Y QPQ done
• Overall, this nomination now passes. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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:2014 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi PCN02WPS. I'll complete a full review of this article soon.

The first thing I'll note is that all of the red links to pages on each school 2013-14 team need to be removed and replaced with each team's general page (ex: link to Baylor Bears women's basketball instead of 2013–14 Baylor Bears women's basketball team. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok here's the rest of the review:

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

1. Well-written

• "The game matched the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the UConn Huskies, and was played..." remove comma
• "...and was placed into the Lincoln Regional" should be "was placed in"
• "The game's tip-off was controlled by UConn, who scored their first points of the contest ten seconds later" rewrite to be in active voice, something like "UConn controlled the game's tip-off..."

2. Verifiable

• Several references have a date that the article was written that is not included in the citations: 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26.
• Refs that need to be linked to an archived version because the URL is dead: 1, 18, 29.
• Refs 8, 13, 23, and 26 need just the website name without the .com/.org to be consistent with the rest of the references

Sources are all reliable, no original research. Copyvio check good. Spot check of refs 2, 6, 13 20, 29, and 30 is good.

3. Broadness
Could you add anything else to the "Media coverage" section?

The article is stable and neutral. No photos included- are there any you could add?

-Riley1012 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Riley1012 I believe everything is taken care of - I added a couple images and some viewership information. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, everything looks good. -Riley1012 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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.