Talk:2014 Texas Bowl/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Thanks for the review! I think I have covered everything. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: Well done, I think this is good to be passed. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 19:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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  Removed "then" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Arkansas was unable to capitalize, however, – remove however there as it is a word to watch  Removed "however" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC) SB Nation later reported that the gesture was, in fact, – same thing with in fact  Removed "in fact" PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
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  Removed – That part of the sentence is supported as well by the ESPN reference so I just removed the Forbes reference altogether. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC) What makes The US Daily and Westwood One Sports reliable  Done – both have been replaced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	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  Done – I ran IABot to resolve the deadlink and add archives to sources, and a source for the Iowa State game has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	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.	Taking over with great field position, at the Texas 35-yard-line — just say taking over at the Texas 35-yard-line so it doesn't sound like great is puffery  Removed PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	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.	You can also use this picture of the Texas' quarterback File:Tyrone Swoopes.jpg  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC) You could also add pictures of the head coaches  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.