GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

[edit]

Teams

[edit]

Illinois

[edit]

Penn State

[edit]

Game summary

[edit]

Pre-game

[edit]

First half

[edit]

Second half

[edit]

Overtimes

[edit]

Scoring summary

[edit]

Statistics

[edit]

Team statistics

[edit]

Individual statistics

[edit]

Aftermath

[edit]

References

[edit]

General comments

[edit]

Putting the article on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 16:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostRiver, I have done my best to address your comments. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making those changes, particularly with regards to the references; I know SBNation always comes up for me when I try to work on GANs and it's a pain to find other ones. Everything looks good on my end, passing now! — GhostRiver 22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]