Jump to content

Talk:2022 College Football Playoff National Championship

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

someone make the box show the big score numbers

[edit]

I don’t know how to do it Eg224 (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind :) Eg224 (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk11:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk), Dmoore5556 (talk), and Kevinthomas20 (talk). Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk) at 06:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • - Article is long enough, was expanded 5x within a week of nomination, and is well sourced. As someone who doesn't know college football and it players/coaches, I think ALT2 is the better hook that would appeal more broadly to sport fans. The age old story of facing your previous team. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 to T:DYK/P1

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 College Football Playoff National Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NSNW (talk · contribs) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I will be reviewing this nomination soon, will be finished in a few days. NSNW (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

References:

[edit]

* [4], [5], and [6] could be better sources, (I'm unsure if they are reliable or not).

Broadness:

[edit]

MOS:

[edit]

Words to watch:

[edit]