Talk:2022 Armed Forces Bowl
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Ganesha811 in topic GA Review
![]() | 2022 Armed Forces Bowl 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: August 16, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from 2022 Armed Forces Bowl appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
edit- 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)
( )
- ... 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 |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
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
editThe 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 |
- 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)
- @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)
- 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. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
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. |
| |
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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
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.