Talk:2024 Rose Bowl/GA1

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Arconning in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 02:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Will review this! Comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PCN02WPS Here are my comments, made some minor copy-edits. Hope they can be addressed! Arconning (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Arconning Everything has been taken care of or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Prose and MoS

edit

Lead and infobox

edit
  • bowl games which concluded, replace which with that.
  • The winner qualified through to the 2024 College Football Playoff, wondering if this should be ...for the 2024 College Football Playoff?

Background

edit
  • No issues, nice work.

Teams

edit

Game summary

edit
  • After two plays for no gain,, is this an American football term that should be wikilinked?
  • . Michigan took a knee to run the remaining seconds off of the clock and send the game to overtime., "took a knee", same with preceding comment
  • Tables are formatted properly.

Aftermath

edit

Images

edit
  • All images are relevant to the article and have proper licensing.

Refs

edit
  • Earwig's okay.
  • Random ref checks: 1, 14, 21, 24, 37, 43, good.
  • I'd like to question the reliability of 29, Football Zebras. If it's reliable, it should probably use it's name rather than the website to follow consistency with the ref layout

Misc

edit
  • No ongoing edit war, broad and focused info, neutral.
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
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.