Talk:Buccaneers–Packers rivalry/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. I'll try to have it done in the next day or two. From a quick glance the article looks like it's in pretty good shape already. -- ZooBlazer 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZooBlazer, thanks for the review and happy to work with you on any improvements. No rush, I am generally available :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Great job overall! I didn't find any major issues. Mostly minor things with some that could also be considered nitpicks. Once you address the issues below I'll do spotchecks. -- ZooBlazer 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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. 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):

   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:

• {{Photo montage|size=300|photo1b=David Martin82 Brett Favre4-Edit2.jpg|photo1a=Warren Sapp2.jpg|align=center|color=white| border = 0}} - Is there a reason 1b comes before 1a when every other instance of the images is Sapp's image being on the left/first?
  • Not really. I swapped it while making other edits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• the actual failed invasion of Cuba during the Cold War of the same name and the fact that - A command needs added after "name"
  • I reworded the whole sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• the Packers saw a revival, making the playoffs for eight straight seasons - Maybe it's more of a nitpick, but I'd suggest removing "for"
  • Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• the Buccaneers and Packers played each other twice a season from 1977 to 2001 - Change it to twice per season
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• However, the Packers, led by quarterback Don Majkowski drove down the field in time for a walk-off field goal by kicker Chris Jacke. - Need a comma after Majkowski
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Also change either the beginning of this sentence or the beginning of the sentence in the next paragraph so they don't both start with "however"
  • Deleted the second instance. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Brett Favre and Reggie White led the team to six straight playoffs - Change to six straight playoff appearances
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Or reword the sentence differently due to the next part being including a victory in Super Bowl XXXI and another appearance in Super Bowl XXXII.. That way you don't have appearance/appearances so close together. I'll let you decide.
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• the Buccaneers only made the playoffs twice between 2003 and 2019.[15][14] - Flip the refs so they're in numerical order
  • Flipped. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• The Packers defense shut out the Buccaneers 13–0, recording three interceptions and one block - What kind of block? Punt? Field goal?
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• The Buccaneers and Packers played to their first and—as of 2022—only tie of the series. - Update to 2023. Also update it again after the game recap, although is it needed twice in the same section?
  • Updated date. Two different comments. The first stating it is the only tie in the rivalry, the second stating that the Buccaneers have only played to one tie in their franchise history (which just so happens to be this game). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Packers newly signed placekicker Tom Birney - Change it to newly signed Packers placekicker
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• with another 4 inches falling during the game - Change to four
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• reaching their second straight Super Bowl.[45] The Packers would end up losing to the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII.[46] - You can probably just combine these sentences
  • Combined. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• I believe I have addressed all of your comments ZooBlazer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Gonzo_fan2007 Everything looks good to go! -- ZooBlazer 20:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Images are all properly licensed
• Spotchecks - Ref numbers are accurate as of this edit
  • Randomly checked refs #4, #16, #25, #46, and #52. All support the information they are supposed to in the article.
• Plagiarism check - Earwig detected no issues

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.