Jump to content

Talk:2022 Liberty Bowl/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Will come back to this on another read-through; nothing obvious stands out on the first one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On another read through, I'm noticing a few things that need to be addressed. Among them
  1. The last sentence in the last paragraph of the lead is missing a terminating period.
  2. The sentences describing overtime in the lead are The game went to overtime where each team scored a touchdown and made their extra point; in double overtime, each team scored again and successfully converted their two-point try. Under NCAA overtime rules, teams alternate two-point attempts only, rather than an entire drive starting from the 25-yard line, in the third and any subsequent overtime periods. I understand how NCAA overtime works, so I can comprehend it, but I think that it might be hard to read for someone without knowledge of that (not all readers will know which 25-yard line does the drive start at, for example). The second sentence here is also a bit clunky; can you try to rephrase it to be more fluid?
  3. Similar to No. 2, the section on the overtime doesn't specify which 25-yard line the teams get the ball at to start the first and second overtimes. We also have 25-yard line in the lead but 25-yard-line in the body: this should be made consistent (NFL uses the former, as do most news stories that I see).
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. A long argument surrounding MOS:CAPS with respect to the NFL draft concluded that "draft" in "NFL draft" should have a lowercase "d". There are a few uses of the uppercase "D" in the article presently. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On another read through, I'm seeing some instances of analysts noted, which the MOS identifies as being one of the words to watch. In this context, the cited source lists one author (not analysts) and I'm inclined to think that "noted" probably is not the term we want to use here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There are indeed a list of references that appear to meet the layout style guideline. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Having gone through the sources, the vast majority comport with WP:RS. That being said, I'm seeing a Tweet referenced for the MVP—is there any other source that covers this BLP material that isn't a WP:SPS? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's some content in other sections that relates to this, so it remains on hold. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. See 4. We need cited sources to back up claims about player performance; we can't just impute that sort of thing ourselves. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on this:
  1. The effectiveness of running back Devin Neal doesn't appear to come up in the cited source.
  2. While opt-outs are mentioned, the cited source does not compare them against those by Arkansas players, so I'm not sure where the support is for especially as compared to Arkansas. (There are other sourcess that talks about Arkansas transfer portal weaknesses, but they aren't not cited inline for this claim.)
  3. The cited source does mention Sanders, but it doesn't seem to directly support that he was among the biggest pieces of Arkansas' offense.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig checks out A-OK. I haven't noticed any close paraphrasing in the article during my source check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The article seems to address the main aspects of the game. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article seems reasonably focused on the article's subject and avoids going into excessive detail. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. There appears to be some language in the article that isn't directly supported by sources and characterizes player performance. For example, [1] is cited for the fact that Kansas quarterback Jalon Daniels performed to expectations, but the article doesn't appear to say anything of expectations going in. Neither does the article cited at the end of the sentence. When discussing expectations of how players would perform, we need sourcing that talks to that; we can't just use our own feeling to characterize the performance. Other language in the "aftermath" section (i.e. several controversial calls noted by analysts) seem to stretch a bit beyond what sources say (the cited source doesn't attribute to outside analysts, and only two calls were mentioned, not several). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, there's a good amount of passive voice. Saying that things were projected or that something was viewed a certain way seems to leave out who is doing the projection or who views something. Sources need to speak to a general consensus on something if we're going to passively state this in plain WP:Wikivoice (for example, an article from after the game that gives what the expectations were beforehand could be used to support these claims, but we should be doing better than citing one sportswriter for their own views and then plainly stating it without attribution). Otherwise we should probably attribute to the writers who are giving their opinions/making projections. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No recent edit wars detected. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images all are on Commons, and permission was accepted by VRT on them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Image captions seem relevant and suitable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. On hold for now, pending some fixes above and another read-through for spelling/grammar/more detailed fact-checking. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All issues resolved. Congratulations on the GA — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a read-through and update the table as I go along. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through for the first time, and I'm placing on hold. There are a few smaller issues that need fixing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk Thank you for the review! I fixed the caps on "draft" and replaced the tweet with an ESPN article. The language you pointed out has been removed (I decided removing altogether was probably more simple than trying to find a ton of references to allow them to be left in, and the information is just as valuable without the commentary-style analysis). If there's anything else that needs correcting let me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: I've added a few more comments above after another read through. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk Cleaned up the points in 1a (including all instances of "yard-line") and tried to fix all of the "analysts noted" and the analysis-y stuff with attribution or removal of the content. I also cleaned up the passive voice especially as it related to the pre-game sections; there is still a little bit but only in places where I feel it is appropriate; attribution and active voice have replaced all of the inappropriate uses that I found. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA it is. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Liberty_Bowl/GA1&oldid=1208734340"