Talk:2022 Armed Forces 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 Bruxton (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a kickoff temperature of 13 °F (−11 °C) at the 2022 Armed Forces Bowl nearly made it the coldest bowl game ever? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that a kickoff temperature of 13 °F (−11 °C) at the 2022 Armed Forces Bowl nearly made it the coldest bowl game ever, but it missed that mark by 1 °F? Source: same as ALT0
  • ALT2: ... that the 2022 Armed Forces Bowl was nearly the coldest bowl game ever, but missed that mark by 1 °F? Source: same as ALT0
  • ALT3: ... that the 2022 Armed Forces Bowl had the coldest kickoff temperature in Baylor program history at 13 °F (−11 °C)? Source: [2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Bird Babb
  • Comment: Might have some other material for a hook once different post-game recaps are published if this one isn't satisfactory.

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 23 December 2022 (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: @PCN02WPS: Good article but no aftermath section? Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have checked this one out. I like hook 1 or 2 and the nom is ready for promotion but we may have to wait for a new empty set. Too many US based hooks in the sets ATM IMO. Of course another promotor may see it another way, and I would have no objection. Bruxton (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Found a spot! Bruxton (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2022 (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:2022 Armed Forces Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry for the long wait! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS - we're close to GA status, let me know if you have any questions on anything below! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Thank you for the review! I have replaced the footballzebras ref with the final stats reference which shows the officials' names and a web source from the Indiana Football Officials Association that shows the MAC affiliation. I also repaired the dead link. As for the commentators, I totally get where you're coming from, but it is quite difficult to find a source for something like this after the fact; if you want to verify for yourself that these commentators did do the broadcast, the full video can be seen here (commentator intros begin around 1:03 into the video). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, it's verifiable and I regard that as a commonsense solution. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Article meets the GA standard - congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2023 (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.	As is my usual practice, I've made minor tweaks myself to save us both time. Let me know if there are any you would want to discuss.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	I'm not certain that Footballzebras is reliable - if there's another source for the officials, like the box score or similar, it would be better to swap that in. Cite #11, to the Air Force Falcons Athletics, is dead with no archive. Please find a working link or archive link and add it, or swap out the source for another. This is a quibble, but the source on the commentators is from a press release before the game. It would be better to have a source from after the bowl that confirms that those commentators did actually work the game - there's always the possibility of unexpected absence or change in commentators. However, not a dealbreaker, assuming that you verify that those 3 listed did in fact do the broadcast. Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The detailed description of the game is probably more thorough than I would have written, but it's not OR. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None detected by Earwig, hold for manual spot check. Pass, no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, no issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, probably more play-by-play than my personal preference, but a paragraph of description for each quarter is not excessive. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Low-resolution fair-use image is fine, currently no other images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I think an image of the stadium, preferably in winter, would be a fine addition if a good one can be identified. In addition, this image File:U.S. Air Force Academy Armed Forces Bowl 2022 vs Baylor University (7570825).jpg of the game appears to be public domain, is fine quality, and should be added. Pass, with image added. An image of the stadium would still be good but is not required.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.