Talk:2013 Cotton Bowl Classic

2013 Cotton Bowl Classic 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 22, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

College football Low‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 Cotton Bowl Classic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Mostly fine. Any errors are minor and probably preferential.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are a couple sections that need citations. The second paragraphs of both the Texas A&M and Oklahoma sections need citations since they are statistics or facts. The first two on each of those are fine. Done --Go Phightins! 01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article covers all required information and stays on topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No issues here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars of note. Article is stable and unlikely to change.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Quick passing as there are no images.
Overall: ~~I will pass this once the citation issues are fixed.~~ Passed! Good job, and keep up the good work. :)
Pass/Fail: