Talk:2022 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 Bruxton (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the UConn Huskies' appearance in the 2022 Myrtle Beach Bowl ended a six-year bowl game drought? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that Marshall ended a three-game bowl losing streak with their win in the 2022 Myrtle Beach Bowl? Source: same as ALT0
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/King Albert Park MRT station
  • Comment: Open to hook suggestions.

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk) and 2601:5C5:4201:F2C0:6838:E7DD:9D0C:400B (talk). Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk) at 20:12, 20 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 eligibility:

• Cited: - alt0 not verified
• Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @PCN02WPS: Good article but I can't seem to verify alt0. I can verify alt1 just not alt0. Can you explain or provide a different source. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: admittedly it's not directly stated as I worded it so I can gladly change it if you think that would be best but the ALT0 fact is sourced to this line in the article: That was as close as UConn (6-7) could get in its first postseason appearance since 2015. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Onegreatjoke: QPQ has been added above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Myrtle Beach Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 21:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I was surprised to see this article pop up as a good article nominee so swiftly after it concluded, and see that you've been doing a lot of great work getting bowl game articles nominated and passed as good articles. I have had a long-stagnant project to build a featured topic around the UConn bowl games, and previously brought 2009 International Bowl and 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl to FA and List of UConn Huskies bowl games to FL. I'll be using those articles as a baseline for formatting and comprehensiveness when evaluating this article, recognizing that the GA criteria doesn't quite require the same level of comprehensiveness that the FA criteria does. However, if it is possible to push this article along to FAC, I'm more than happy to be of as much assistance as possible.

I am still working on going through the article and will leave thoughts and issues below as I find them. –Grondemar 20:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Lead: I rewrote the first paragraph; let me know what you think. The second paragraph, on the gameplay itself, could use to be tightened up so that it doesn't duplicate the later play-by-play too much; I'll take a look at that next. On previous articles there were also lead paragraphs on Team Selection (briefly covered in the article) and Pre-Game Coverage (not discussed at all), and on the game MVP (briefly mentioned), some summary statistics, and a little on the game aftermath (probably too soon to have much to report).
• Teams: Why was UConn selected even though they didn't have a bowl tie-in? (I'd suggest discussing that there were more bowl game slots than eligible teams and something about 5–7 Rice and waivered New Mexico State also getting in.)
• Marshall: Did the team perform to expectations? What were the expectations going into the season.
  • No. 8 Notre Dame: what is the source of the No. 8 ranking? AP, Coaches' Poll, Harris, CFP rankings? On my two FAs I decided to use AP exclusively and used a note to explain that.
• UConn: We would want to mention that UConn had previously won 4 games in 5 years before winning 6 in 2022, and how surprising this result was. Also, Liberty was ranked; this should be mentioned if Notre Dame's ranking was mentioned earlier.

Will continue reviewing later. –Grondemar 20:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

A couple of comments on sources:

• Do you have a major preference either way on list-defined references? I find them much easier to work with when tracking references throughout an article.
• What makes Statbroadcast a reliable source?

–Grondemar 23:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Grondemar: Hi and thank you for the review! I am doing some traveling at the moment so I can't guarantee that I will get to this super quickly. I do appreciate your recommendations and I will get to addressing them as soon as I can, if that's alright with you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• @PCN02WPS: No problem! There is no deadline. I've been pretty busy myself the last week so I completely understand. –Grondemar 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Grondemar, @PCN02WPS, it's been almost 2 months since this GA review was updated. What's the status? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, I totally forgot about this. I will try to touch it up in the next few days and hopefully get it over the GA threshold. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay; I was waiting for a reply to my earlier findings before I continued with the review. –Grondemar 22:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair. I may have some time this weekend to start giving it some touch-ups. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @PCN02WPS & @Grondemar, it's been another month and no edits have been made to the article or to this review. Are you guys intending to finish this? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I keep forgetting about this and I really do not have the desire to work on this to the extent that is requested by the review; I will likely come back to it at some point in the future but for the time being I am focusing on other articles. I can withdraw the GAN if that would be the logical next step. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was about to fail the article due to inactivity, so I think it is appropriate to withdraw it from review at this point. –Grondemar 23:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair. If/when I get renewed interest in this article and get around to touching it up, I'll probably renominate it and let you know if you're interested in picking it up again. For now I will withdraw the GA nomination. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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