Wikipedia

Talk:2022 Cure Bowl/GA1

< Talk:2022 Cure Bowl
Latest comment: 8 months ago by The Blue Rider in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PCN02WPS: Hi. Just to let you know that the review is done and the article has been placed on hold.
@PCN02WPS: Hello, more than 7 days have passed since I've put the article on hold. Please try to address the suggestions as quickly as possible, otherwise I'll have to fail the article. Many thanks. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I'll try to get to this as soon as I finish up with the Gasparilla Bowl review. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, since so many days have passed and no improvements have been made; I'll have to fail this article. If you want, when you have more time, you can renominate it and continue the review where it we left. It was nice working with you. The Blue Rider   08:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review edit

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Per MOS:INTRO, the lead section should be accessible to a broad audience. The 2nd paragraph has way too much football terminology, I couldn't understand whole sentences. If possible, try to substitute jargon like punt, drive, fumble, safety and turnover to layman's terms.

    Sponsored by workwear company Duluth Holdings Inc... This sentence is too wordy, it needs to be rewritten. Something like this would work, The 2022 Cure Bowl, officially known as Duluth Trading Cure Bowl for sponsorship reasons,...

    ...against No. 24 Houston..., ...with a loss at No. 21 Texas... does No.24 and No.21 mean their table positions? If so, why only these two teams have their table position?

    This sentence is confusing, ...the Trojans traveled to Louisiana, whom they defeated by a touchdown... It may read to some that Louisiana refers to the state and not the football team, I suggest Louisiana to be replaced with Cajuns, Ragin' Cajuns or whatever the team might be commonly called.

    This good field position benefitted Troy. «good» here is futile, if it benefitted Troy its then implicit that the field position was good. I suggest its removal.

    Their nonconference schedule complete, the Roadrunners began... Shouldn't be With their nonconference...?

    		ω Awaiting
    (b) (MoS) ...representing Conference USA (C–USA), began. The wikilink from «Conference USA» is repeated, remove it.

    ...representing the Sun Belt Conference. The wikilink from «Sun Belt Conference» is also repeated.

    Based on conference tie-ins... wikilink to «tie-in».

    The UTSA special teams was... wikilink to «special team».

    UTSA took a knee to take... wikilink to «took a knee».

    ...but an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty... wikilink to «unsportsmanlike».

    ...and umpire Ian Malepleai wikilink to «umpire».

    Per MOS:LEADCITE, inline citations in the lead section should be avoided if possible. The two inline citations in The game began at 3:07 p.m. EST and aired on ESPN... should then be removed, since the content is already covered in another source further down in the article.

    		ω Awaiting
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references)

    Checked references #1, #2, #3, #4, #12, #15, #22, #39 and #41 of this version.

    Isn't there an official ESPN source for the referee instead of the #3 source (Football Zebras)?

    The #4 source (College Football Poll) doesn't seem reliable for that kind of information.

    The #12 source (KSAT) doesn't state that it was UTSA first win.

    		ω Awaiting
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The game was played at Exploria Stadium in Orlando, Florida, and weather at kickoff was sunny with a temperature of 66 °F (19 °C). This needs an inline citation.

    The game ended with a final score of Troy 18, UTSA 12, at 6:47 p.m. EST, after a total duration of three hours and 39 minutes. This also needs an inline citation.

    ...leading UTSA into their homecoming contest against the North Texas Mean Green. This also needs an inline citation.

    The attendance number stated in the infobox needs a source.

    		ω Awaiting
    (c) (original research) After the Roadrunners gained only one total yard on their next three plays, they were forced to attempt another fourth down conversion, and this one was also unsuccessful.. This might be original research but I know nothing about this sport. Is the team obliged to do a fourth down conversion or do they have more options of possible plays? ω Awaiting
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Earwig's Copyvio Detector says violation unlikely (5,7%).   Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) ...the game usually features teams from the Mid-American Conference and the Sun Belt Conference; however, this season's matchup featured a team from Conference USA. Why was a team from Conference USA picked instead of one from Mid-American Conference? An explanation should be in the article.

    The game ended with a final score of Troy 18, UTSA 12.... I think it should be explicit which team won the Cup.

    A post-match section should be included in the article. Don't forget to update the lead afterwards.

    		ω Awaiting
    (b) (focused) ...in a game visited by College GameDay. Why is the fact that College GameDay broadcasted that specific game relevant to the article? If it isn't, I advise its removal.

    Their last game in October was a Thursday night contest... The exact day of the week and time of the day of this specific Troy's game isn't pertinent. It would be better if removed.

    		ω Awaiting
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    ...began their season with a thrilling triple-overtime..., «thrilling» is a peacock term, it needs to be removed.

    Dominant wins over Louisiana Tech and Rice followed..., «dominant» is also a peacock term.

    ...regular season with a pair of convincing wins..., «convincing» is also a peacock term.

    ...their offense gained only four yards..., «only» is a word to be watched and its use here constitutes original research, since its not supported by sources. It needs to be removed.

    ...the Roadrunners were similarly unproductive as they gained..., the above logic also applies to «similarly unproductive».

      Removed all. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    		 ω Awaiting
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Everything peaceful   Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) This article could benefit from images. Captain, head coach and stadium photos would be great.   Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined

Result edit

Result Notes
  On hold The reviewer has left no comments here
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Cure_Bowl/GA1&oldid=1178928404"