Jump to content

Talk:2016–17 College Football Playoff/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 20:24, 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) 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

[edit]

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

Sources

[edit]
  • 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].Green tickY
  • [23].Green tickY
  • [14].Green tickY
  • [30]. 1st mention.Green tickY 2nd mention.Green tickY
  • [22].Green tickY
  • [5]. 1st mention.Green tickY 2nd mention.Green tickY
  • [6].Green tickY