Talk:2014–15 College Football Playoff

2014–15 College Football Playoff is currently a Football good article nominee. Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Postseason college football tournament

College football High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States 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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014–15 College Football Playoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2024 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Stable?

Yes Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

Earwig shows a 14.5% due to the names of the teams. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources(2)

sources are styled well.
all sources are reliable.
doing a spot check of all the sources in 4 rounds.

Round 1

[25]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.N 3rd mention. leaning Y
[20].Y
[28].? Can't access
[7].Y
[1].Y
[30]. 1st mention.? 2nd mention.Y

Round 2

[22].Y
[13]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
[5].Y
[9].Y
[33].Y
[12]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
[31].N I don't see where is the fact in this source that the game ended with an interception.
[3].Y
[14]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
[16].Y

Round 3

[2].Y
[4].Y
[6].Y
[8].Y
[10].Y
[11].Y
[15].Y
[17].Y
[18].Y
[19].Y