Talk:Instant Replay Game
Instant Replay Game 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: November 12, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Instant Replay Game appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 December 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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 SL93 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- ... that for 10 years the Chicago Bears media guide had an asterisk placed next to the result of the Instant Replay Game noting the team's belief that the game was decided incorrectly? Source: Maxymuk, John (2003). Packers by the Numbers: Jersey Numbers and the Players who Wore Them. Boulder, CO: Big Earth Publishing. ISBN 978-1879483903. Page 33
Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:23, 6 November 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: @Gonzo fan2007: Good Article. Hook is interesting, article is sourced, and the QPQ is done. Approving. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Special date request: the Packers and Bears play each other on December 4. Could we target that date for this DYK? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Instant Replay Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs) 20:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll take on this review... Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Picture
edit- A lot of NFL game articles have pictures of the stadium (e.g. Clock Play, No Punt Game, Freezer Bowl. Probably worth adding in a Lambeau field picture for consistency.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Lede
edit- 4th down touchdown pass... Here "4th-down" should be hyphenated, as it modifies a noun.
- The instant replay official... This phrase is repeated; you can just say "He" the second time.
- Packers' victory over the Bears... No need for the apostrophe.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Background
edit- including winning the Super Bowl during the 1984 NFL season... It was the 1985 season when they won it. I'd also suggest the more specific "at the end of" rather than "during".
- Because the Bears and Packers were in the same division, they were scheduled to play each other twice a season: once in Green Bay and once in Chicago.... I'd replace "were" with "are" both times, as this is still the case today. Then begin the next sentence with "In 1989, their first match-up was scheduled..."
Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Game summary
edit- full back... Fullback is all one word.
- The fourth quarter saw the Bears and Packers go back-and-forth,... Here "back and forth" isn't hyphenated, as it's not describing anything else (e.g. "a back-and-forth game" would be hyphenated).
- Two Packers' drives... Again, no need for the possessive apostrophe.
- The Packers drove down the field... Two consecutive sentences beginning with "The Packers"; the second one can begin simply "They".
- Majkowski snapped the ball... Typically the Center is the one said to have snapped the ball; I suggest "received the snap".
- As he approached the line of scrimmage,... I'd suggest blue-linking line of scrimmage, as it's a central component of this play.
- he threw the ball to Shannon Sharpe... Also blue link Sterling Sharpe, as it's the first time he's mentioned in the body of the article.
- after a turnover ond owns.... Typo.
- After further review, we have a reversal. Touchdown. Unless there's a particular convention to the contrary for these inset boxes, I'd expect quote marks around this bit.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Boxscore
edit- The title should be box score with a space, I think.
- Boxscore and Starting Lineups from Pro Football Reference... Again, a space is needed in "box score". Also, no need to capitalize "starting lineups", and Pro-Football-Reference.com can be blue-linked.
- Box scores usually have drive details where available (e.g. the current Packers season. You can add those from this source.[1]
Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Impact
edit- Don Majikwoski... Typo.
- his proclivity for dramatic and sometimes miraculous finishes.... "Miraculous" seems a bit hyperbolic for an encyclopedia.
- This victory over the Bears was one of a then-record four, one-point victories for the 1989 Packers.... No comma after "four".
- the most of any Packers' team... No apostrophe.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Legacy
edit- the 20-yard-line... Remove the second hyphen.
- The rule for an illegal forward pass was also changed to make it easier to make a determination, now stating that the player throwing the ball and the ball itself both had to be behind the line of scrimmage to be legal.... Based on the citation, it looks like it was changed so that only the quarterback's position was relevant, with the ball not mattering any longer.
- When asked about the game in 2014, Bears head coach at the time, Mike Ditka,... This wording makes it a bit unclear whether Ditka was Chicago's head coach in 1989 or in 2014.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Conclusion
editA well-written article, just needing a few adjustments to pass.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Harper J. Cole, thanks for the thorough review! I believe I have addressed all your comments in these edits. Let me know if you have any questions or additional comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Looking good! I've promoted. Nice work on the article. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)