Talk:2016–17 College Football Playoff

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2016–17 College Football Playoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 06:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 20:24, 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)} 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Earwig shows a 7.4% due to the name and the quotes. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• sources are styled well.
• all sources are reliable except for [17] which is a blog.
• doing a spot check of all the sources in 3 rounds.

• Round 1

• [19].Y
• [23].Y
• [14].Y
• [30]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
• [22].Y
• [5]. 1st mention.Y 2nd mention.Y
• [6].Y

• Round 2

• [8].Y
• [16].Y
• [25].Y
• [31].Y