Talk:2014 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship game/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: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi PCN02WPS. I'll complete a full review of this article soon.

The first thing I'll note is that all of the red links to pages on each school 2013-14 team need to be removed and replaced with each team's general page (ex: link to Baylor Bears women's basketball instead of 2013–14 Baylor Bears women's basketball team. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok here's the rest of the review:

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1. Well-written

• "The game matched the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the UConn Huskies, and was played..." remove comma
• "...and was placed into the Lincoln Regional" should be "was placed in"
• "The game's tip-off was controlled by UConn, who scored their first points of the contest ten seconds later" rewrite to be in active voice, something like "UConn controlled the game's tip-off..."

2. Verifiable

• Several references have a date that the article was written that is not included in the citations: 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26.
• Refs that need to be linked to an archived version because the URL is dead: 1, 18, 29.
• Refs 8, 13, 23, and 26 need just the website name without the .com/.org to be consistent with the rest of the references

Sources are all reliable, no original research. Copyvio check good. Spot check of refs 2, 6, 13 20, 29, and 30 is good.

3. Broadness
Could you add anything else to the "Media coverage" section?

The article is stable and neutral. No photos included- are there any you could add?

-Riley1012 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Riley1012 I believe everything is taken care of - I added a couple images and some viewership information. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, everything looks good. -Riley1012 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 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.