Jump to content

Talk:2015–16 College Football Playoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015–16 College Football Playoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 00:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. 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):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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?

[edit]

Yes Cos (X + Z) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

[edit]

Earwig shows a 3.8% due to simple phrases such as "the top four teams". Cos (X + Z) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • sources are styled well.
  • all sources are reliable except for [32] which is a blog.
  • doing a spot check of all the sources in 4 rounds.
  • Round 1
  • [9].Green tickY
  • [27].Green tickY
  • [17].Green tickY
  • [39].Green tickY
  • [15].Green tickY
  • [7].? can't access
  • [8].? Source says Baylor was No. 4 not No. 6.
  • [13].Green tickY
  • [6].Green tickY