Talk:2014 NFC Championship Game

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Green Bay Packers lost the 2014 NFC Championship Game and a chance to go to the Super Bowl after having a 99.9% chance of victory late in the game?

• Source: Green Bay ran three plays and punted. And on Seattle’s ensuing drive, its chances to win dipped to 0.1% after Wilson threw incomplete with 3:07 left.

• Reviewed: Barquq Castle

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 50 past nominations.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC).

• Moved to mainspace within a week of nomination. QPQ attempted, article well-written, and as a Vikings fan I love the hook. However, per WP:RSP, Forbes contributors are not considered reliable; can you find another source for the statement?~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Darth Stabro, thanks for the review! Rob Reischel is a well-known reported of the Packers, who worked for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and has written 8 books on the Packers. I believe this meets the requirement that a Forbes contributor is a subject matter expert. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Gonzo_fan2007 did some digging and it seems to be so, and the Forbes contributor prohibition does explicitly state that those who are proven experts are exempt. Nihil obstat. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Darth_Stabro, thanks! Probably the hardest article I have ever written... probably the saddest I have ever been as a Packers fan. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 NFC Championship Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 16:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Verylongandmemorable (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2025 (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, as shown by a source spot-check?

   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:

   copyvio detector looks good (9.1%), but will review in more detail during spot-check

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:

Lead / Infobox

Infobox looks good.

Lead is a good length, covers contents of article well but could use some copy-editing changes to improve clarity, here are some suggestions:

• Both the Packers and Seahawks finished the 2014 season with the same record, 12–4, enough for each team to win their respective divisions. → "The Packers and Seahawks each finished the 2014 season at 12–4, winning their respective divisions."
• the Packers and Seahawks both had bye weeks for the first round of the playoffs. → "the Packers and Seahawks both received first-round byes"
• controversially winning 26–21 in what became known as the Dez Caught It game. → sounds strange without context, maybe "winning 26-21 in a game that became known as the Dez Caught It game, named for a controversial catch ruling involving Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant."
• The Seahawks began an improbable comeback that included a defensive stop, a quick touchdown, a successful onside kick, another quick touchdown and a successful two-point conversion to take a 22–19 lead with about a minute left in the game. → "The Seahawks began an improbable comeback: a defensive stop followed by a quick touchdown; a successful onside kick recovery; and another touchdown with a successful two-point conversion to take a 22–19 lead with about a minute remaining."
• The game continued a growing rivalry between the two teams and gained notability for the unlikely comeback and questionable decisions by Packers' coaches and players. → "gained notability" is strange tone, maybe something like "and gained widespread media attention for the unlikely comeback ..."

All done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Background

more small copy-edits/manual of style changes:

• The Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks developed a rivalry after a number of notable games, including the infamous Fail Mary game in 2012. both "notable" and "infamous" are MOS:PEACOCK words, try something more neutral like "The Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks developed a rivalry through several closely contested matchups, particularly after a controversial game-ending play in 2012 that became known as the 'Fail Mary'"
• After the Week 1 match-up, the Packers won 12 of the remaining 15 games, including going on a 4-game and 5-game win streak. "going on" is awkward phrasing here, maybe "... won 12 of the remaining 15 games, including separate four-game and five-game winning streaks"
• The streak included two wins against the Arizona Cardinals, allowing the Seahawks to overcome a 3-game deficit against them, win the NFC West and secure the first seed in the playoffs. → "The streak included two wins against the Arizona Cardinals, helping the Seahawks overcome a three-game deficit to win the NFC West and secure the first seed in the playoffs."

All done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Game summary

First half

• The game began with back-to-back drives ending in an interception, first by the Seahawks and then by the Packers. After the Packers intercepted Russell Wilson, they drove to the one-yard line but were stopped on consecutive plays and settled for a field goal. who threw the interceptions is ambiguous in the first sentence, and the two are a bit redundant together. I'd suggest "The game began with back-to-back interceptions: Rodgers threw one to the Seahawks, followed by Wilson throwing one to the Packers. After gaining possession, the Packers drove to the one-yard line..."
• mid-field → "midfield"

All done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Second half

• The teams again exchanged punts on short drives before the Packers drove 57 yards for a 48-yard field goal by Crosby. The drive, which spanned the end of the third quarter and start of the fourth, was sparked by a 32-yard rush by James Starks on the first play. events are out of order here and unnecessarily confusing, try "The teams again exchanged punts after short drives. The Packers started their next drive with a 32-yard rush by James Starks, sparking a 57-yard drive that ended with a 48-yard field goal by Crosby."
• Morgan Burnett intercepted Wilson on his first pass → "Morgan Burnett intercepted Wilson's first pass" (avoid amibigious pronoun, even if it's understandable with context)
• losing 4 yard cumulatively → "losing 4-yards cumulatively"
• Down 19–14 with just over two minutes left in the game, the Seahawks attempted an onside kick, which they recovered to retain possession after Packer Brandon Bostick—whose role was to block—instead leapt into the air and tried to catch the ball; it bounced off his helmet and ended up in the hands of Seahawk Chris Matthews. split up long sentence for clarity → "Down 19-14 with just over two minutes left in the game, the Seahawks attempted an onside kick. Packer Brandon Bostick—whose role was to block—instead leapt into the air and tried to catch the ball. The ball bounced off his helmet and was recovered by Seahawk Chris Matthews."

All done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Analysis

Brandon Bostick took a lot of blame for the loss due to his onside-kick gaffe. is overly colloquial for an image caption, try "Packers tight end Brandon Bostick, who faced criticism for mishandling the onside kick attempt"

• Statistically, the Seahawks achieved the victory after almost certain defeat, with one source noting over a 99.9% chance of a Packers' victory in the fourth quarter. "achieved the victory" is awkward
• Twice he settled for a field goal on fourth down on the one-yard line, and overall the Packers converted five field goals in the game. → "The Packers kicked field goals twice on fourth down from the one-yard line, part of a total of five field goals in the game."
• Touchdowns on either of the fourth down calls likely would have changed the dynamic of the game, increasing the Packers' lead and limiting the possibility of a comeback. this sentence is speculative without clear attribution, "changed the dynamic" is vague
• second paragraph is overall disjointed between discussing the impact of injuries, and criticism of specific Packers players, either split in two or have a better transition.
• Ha Ha Clinton-Dix dropped an easy interception that might have been returned for a touchdown and he took heat on the two-point conversion for not being more aggressive and making a play on the ball. remove "easy", give attribution for the speculation that the interception "might have been returned for a touchdown" and change "took heat" to more formal phrasing
• A number of key plays occurred that changed the trajectory of the game. overly vague/metaphorical, change to something like "Several specific plays proved decisive in the game's outcome:"
• it was revealed is vague, please provide better attribution

Done. Regarding the attribution for "might have been returned for a touchdown", the source says one that could have yielded a pick-6 the other way. A pick-six is a touchdown, so I believe the article properly summarizes the source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

• monumental collapse and The thrill of the victory was dampened seem overly flowery

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise this section looks good!

Ref spot-check

References look consistent and well-formatted.

From a RNG, checking the following refs: 5, 8, 10, 19, 27, 29

• [5] Pro football reference, verifies playoff standings from 2013
• [8] Pro football reference, verifies seahawks record and win streak to end year
• [10] USA Today, verifies seahawks 1st seed and beating AZ Cardinals twice. From second citation, confirms home field advantage for NFC championship game
• [19] Clipping from Green Bay Press-Gazette, verifies Packers unsuccessful rushes, media coverage on how game could have gone differently
• [27] Bleacher Report, lists game as one of Seattle's "signature victories"
• [29] Sports Illustrated, covers coverage of Seahawk's potential dynasty

Final comments

@Gonzo fan2007: I enjoyed reading the article; it is well structured, the material is cited properly, the references are formatted consistently. However, I think the prose could use work before it meets the good article criteria, in terms of being more clear and avoiding flowery or informal language. I've made specific suggestions for each section above, though none of them are strict rules and you can feel free to disagree with specific points if you think I'm not following the criteria. I will be placing the GAN on hold to give you time to make changes (take as much time as you need). Verylongandmemorable (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Verylongandmemorable for the thorough review! All comments addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

All looks good! Congratulations on the good article :) Verylongandmemorable (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)