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

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 05:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be happy to handle this review. I'll hopefully get through the article tomorrow and post my initial thoughts then.

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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   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:

Overall, I think the article is in pretty good shape. There are some minor things I came across when going through the article and I did my best to organize by the sections they're in. -- Zoo (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you find a source for the anthem being pre-recorded so that you can replace the hidden note in the infobox?

• Add halftime show info to replace hidden note if possible
  •  Done both PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink EST

• Change dominating to defeating. It's more neutral, even if it wasn't a close game.

• Maybe instead of the second efn, link to the article in the sentence and link to the specified section within the article (College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Yearly national championship selections from major selectors)
  • All  Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• CFP organizers announced that they would move the release of final rankings --> add "the" before final

• You may want to update ref #8 to this as the current ref link is for 2023
  •  Done both. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest maybe updating the total attendance ref to this. It both confirms the attendance listed in the article, as well as stating that the attendance was 23% of capacity which can be updated in the same section of the article which currently states the percent was approximately 20%.
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a space between the game summary and 1st half subsections.

• Alabama started their next drive well, with a 12-yard pass --> Alabama started their next drive with a 12-yard pass

• Alabama scored even more quickly on this drive --> Alabama scored even quicker on this drive

• Ohio State ended their final drive of the first half --> can just say final drive of the half, since the section is about the first half
  •  Done all PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd recommend archiving the refs. One ref is already marked as dead (#7) and needs replaced, or if there is an archive available from before the link went down, just add that.
  • Ran IABot, which added 26 archives. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not absolutely necessary, but I suggest Wikilinking the sites for the refs where available. Ex: Sports Illustrated

• The official website link is no longer related to the game
  • Changed to archive. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Are you going to be able to make the edits? I'd hate to have to fail this when it's so close to passing. -- Zoo (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer I believe everything is taken care of, ready for another look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Everything looks good except ref #9 (formerly 7) is still dead and didn't get an archive. Fix that and I'll pass the article. -- Zoo (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer Totally missed that one - it's been taken care of now. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Everything looks good now. Passing. Congrats! -- Zoo (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]