Talk:2014–15 College Football Playoff/GA1

GA Review

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

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

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Copyvio?

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

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