Talk:Kick Six/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 01:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do this review for you. I should be able to post my initial comments within a day or two after I fully go through the article. -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Infobox and lead

• Are you able to add citations to the rankings in the infobox?
  • Done
• Need to cite the rating in the infobox
  • Done
• berth in the SEC Championship Game and, potentially, the National Championship game at stake - move the comma after "and" to after "Game"
  • Done
• Alabama coach Nick Saban challenged the timekeeping call, and after a video review, one second was put back on the clock, and the Crimson Tide lined up for a potential game-winning 57-yard field goal - This should probably be split into two sentences with the second one combining with The kick was short, and Auburn's Chris Davis, who had been positioned near the goal line, caught the ball just in front of the goal posts. - Maybe turn it into something like Alabama coach Nick Saban challenged the timekeeping call and one second was put back on the clock after a video review. The Crimson Tide lined up for a potential game-winning 57-yard field goal and the kick was short, allowing Auburn's Chris Davis, who had been positioned near the goal line, to catch the ball just in front of the goal posts.
  • Done

Background

• Iron Bowl can be linked at the end of the first paragraph
  • Done
• The end of that paragraph has citation overkill. Maybe remove a couple or spread them out if possible.
  • Done
• Is it possible to expand on the first paragraph so it's not so short? Or combine parts of later paragraphs?
• Done
• SEC champions can be linked in paragraph two
  • Done
• against the Georgia Bulldogs and went on to soundly defeat - A reader shouldn't have to click a link to learn what it is linking to like is currently being done with "soundly defeat". You can move the link to their second consecutive national title or just reword it entirely
  • Done
• their third in four years - add "and" before their
  • Done
• Same issue as above. "Their own" links to the 2010 Auburn team, but people can only guess based on the wording
  • Done
• two years after their own National Championship victory, the Auburn Tigers - Auburn Tigers can be linked
  • Done
• 2012 Iron Bowl–their second consecutive blowout loss in the Iron Bowl - No need to mention Iron Bowl twice that close together. Maybe change the second mention to "the game" or "the rivalry/rivalry game"
  • Done
• Alabama entered the 2013 season ranked #1 and remained at the top of the polls for the entire season, rolling through their schedule with relative ease, winning all but one of their games (Texas A&M) by more than 10 points. - needs a source, as does the next sentence regarding Auburn's season being defined by come from behind wins
  • Done
• pass known as the "Prayer at Jordan–Hare" Just a minor detail, but the ref you use calls it Prayer in Jordan–Hare
  • Done
• It was also the first Iron Bowl in which both teams were playing for a berth to the SEC Championship. Alabama was also - maybe a slight reword so you're not using "was" in back to back sentences.
  • Done
• "broadcast live from outside Jordan–Hare Stadium" - the stadium can be linked
  • Done
• ...as well as Paul Finebaum, unanimously picked Alabama to win the game - you have citation overkill again. Maybe try to cut it down to 3-4 refs if possible if they can't be spread out
  • Done

Second quarter

• with a 11-play, 67-yard --> an 11 play
  • Done
• The Tiger's woes continued on the following drive, losing 9 yards, going three and out and punting - maybe put a comma after "out"
  • Done
• sparking a 81-yard --> an 81
  • Done

Third quarter

• but Cooper dropped the would-be touchdown. Following the dropped would-be touchdown - you can probably just say "following the drop" in the second sentence
  • Done
• "quarter came to the a close" - remove the
  • Done

Fourth quarter

• "next drive deep in their own territory and, following" - move the comma to after "territory"
  • Done
• "2:41 left in the game, and trailing 28–21, and drove to the Alabama" - rewrite so you're not repeatedly saying "and"
  • Done

Final 32 seconds

• "Adam Griffith taking the kick instead of the struggling Foster, but before the kick" --> you can probably start a new sentence after Foster.
  • Done
• Since Alabama's field goal unit being made up mostly of offensive linemen, --> Maybe change "since" to something like "due to" or "as a result of"
  • Done
• Bramblett's call of the final play is considered one of the greatest announcer calls in recent sports history - you have citation overkill here technically, but because of what's being cited, can you maybe cut one? 4 seems to be the max from my experiences.
  • Done

Naming the game

• "used by most media outlets, Auburn, and the NCAA to refer to both the play and the game" - Cut a ref or 2 if possible
  • Done

Images

All images appear to be properly licensed.

References

I still need to do ref checks, but I'll wait until after you make some of the changes. However, just some quick things to note:

• I recommend adding archives to all refs where possible. Probably want to use the bot so you don't have to do it one by one.
  • Done
• Ref #45 needs expanded
  • Done

• Earwig found no big issues. The only refs that turned up a decently high match were the quotes for the call, which are sourced.
• Ref numbers are accurate as of this edit:
  • Ref #10: Nielsen rating for the vane was an 8.2 -  Confirmed
  • Ref #15: The football programs representing the University of Alabama and Auburn University first met in 1893 -  Confirmed
  • Refs #32 and #33: Two weeks before the Iron Bowl, No. 7 Auburn defeated rival Georgia with a tipped Hail Mary pass known as the "Prayer at Jordan–Hare", setting the stage for a highly ranked Iron Bowl matchup -  Confirmed Both refs use the nickname for the pass
  • Ref #43: It was the Tigers' first offensive touchdown against Alabama since 2010 -  Confirmed
  • Refs #54 and #57: Two different announcer calls for the Kick Six -  Confirmed

Comments

Overall the article looks really good and most of the issues I found are pretty minor. I remember watching this game and I can't believe it's been almost 10 years already. -- ZooBlazer^talk 17:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer Thanks for the review! I currently have some real world stuff on my plate, and it will probably be 1-2 weeks before I am able to address the comments. I appreciate the feedback and will make the necessary changes as soon as I have the time. Newtothisedit (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newtothisedit No rush. I have this page on my watchlist, but tag me again when you're back working on the article just in case I miss it. -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer I believe that I have addressed everything. Newtothisedit (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newtothisedit Everything looks good. I'm gonna promote the article to GA. Congrats! -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

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.