Talk:2021 Myrtle Beach Bowl

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Tulsa and Old Dominion each entered the 2021 Myrtle Beach Bowl on winning streaks of at least three games, and each had to win their final regular season game to achieve bowl eligibility? Source: "The Golden Hurricane won their last three games of the regular season to qualify for the postseason. The Monarchs did them two better, winning their past five games to reach its first bowl game since 2016"
  • ALT1: ... that Tulsa and Old Dominion, who played in the 2021 Myrtle Beach Bowl, each had to win their final regular season game to achieve bowl eligibility? Source: Old Dominion beats Charlotte, 56-34, to become bowl eligible and Tulsa Gets Bowl Eligible With 34-31 Win at SMU
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Byron Root Pierce

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC).

• Starting this review shortly. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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: Article meets eligibility criteria. 5x expanded. Meets length requirements. Tone is neutral and does not present any issues. Earwig's copyvio detector does not detect any issues. Can we add a source to the scoring summary box. Hooks are both cited and sourced. Hooks are interesting. QPQ is done. Other than the very minor request to source the scoring summary box, this one is good to go. Nicely done. Ktin (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ktin, thanks for the quick review! I've added two inline citations (the ESPN game summary and official final stats) to the "references" field in the box score template, and those are meant to cover both the {{Americanfootballbox}} and the score summary below, is that adequate? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

PCN02WPS looks good. Approving. Ktin (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 to T:DYK/P5

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 Myrtle Beach Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copy changes

Teams

• They entered the game with a 6–6 overall record, and a 5–3 record in conference — no need for a comma here. "A 5–3 record in conference" is not a standalone sentence. A comma and "and" separate otherwise separate sentences.
• Their first win came the following week against Arkansas State, but dropped their conference opener the next week against Houston — missing subject in the second half
• travelled probably should be traveled (one L) for American English

Summary

• Soos' → Soos's
• Fix After a two plays
• Very good use of links for football jargon here

Notes

• References are archived (I see this was done after nomination, but this isn't a bad thing to do when you nominate a page).
• Earwig turns up no elements of concern.
• Images are all freely licensed (from the nominator, too!). They do need alt tags, which for most can be a simple "Refer to caption". You can use the |Alt= parameter in the infobox. (That infobox set with its strange parameter capitalization should really be changed over to standard, lowercase, underscore-using param names... Might need to float the idea to the project.)

@PCN02WPS: 7-day hold. All it needs are a handful of style tuneups and image alt tags. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Thanks for the review! I have made the copyedits above and added alt text for the images (I believe I did this correctly, though I am inexperienced with doing that so if I made a mistake somewhere just let me know). I also noticed a couple iffy sources (SB Nation) so those have been replaced, and I ran it through some scripts to catch date formats, dashes, and archive the rest of the sources. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Smooth. Things look good. Was surprised to see SBNation flagged as unreliable despite no listing at RSP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)