Talk:2014 Texas Bowl/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kaleeb18 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Kaleeb18 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply


I'll be reviewing this one using the table below. I used to live in Texas so Hook 'em horns, but Arkansas is cool too. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kaleeb18: Thanks for the review! I think I have covered everything. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@PCN02WPS: Well done, I think this is good to be passed. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:12, 3 June 2022 (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.
  • and then travelled to Dallas to face No. 11 Oklahoma — don't write and then
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
  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).
  • Using the user script to detect unreliable sources, it says SB Nation in an unreliable source, but that may be because they consider themselves a blog. It looks fine to me as they are owned by Vox Media
  • The Forbes' reference, number 20, is not reliable because it is written by a contributor per WP:FORBESCON
  • What makes The US Daily and Westwood One Sports reliable
  2c. it contains no original research.
  • quotes from ref 6 and 36 are good
  • spotchecks for ref 9, 29, 45, 51, 58 all check out but ref 32 seems to be a dead link and ref 42 seems to only mention the Kansas game and nothing about the Iowa one
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • The copyvio detector detects only a 7.2% possibility of plagiarism
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment.