Talk:2022 Liberty Bowl
Appearance
![]() | 2022 Liberty Bowl has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 18, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from 2022 Liberty Bowl appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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 Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that a targeting penalty called against an Arkansas player during the 2022 Liberty Bowl was overturned by the NCAA the next day? Source: [1], [2]
- ALT1: ... that a targeting penalty that caused the disqualification of an Arkansas player during overtime of the 2022 Liberty Bowl was overturned by the NCAA the next day?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Seattle SeaDogs
- Comment: I can switch up the wording if desired; also might be worth mentioning that the incident in question took place during double overtime or that the targeting penalty in NCAA football results in a player's disqualification from participation in the rest of the game.
5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 06:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- why use twitter?
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- probably could use your suggestions.
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @PCN02WPS: Good article but I have some problems. 1. Yeah I do feel as if the hook should be expanded on a bit with your suggestions to be more interesting. 2. Citation 2 is cited to twitter of all places, would like if you replaced the citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke: ALT hook proposed and ref changed in article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Liberty Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 February 2024 (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. | Will come back to this on another read-through; nothing obvious stands out on the first one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | A long argument surrounding MOS:CAPS with respect to the NFL draft concluded that "draft" in "NFL draft" should have a lowercase "d". There are a few uses of the uppercase "D" in the article presently. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (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. | There are indeed a list of references that appear to meet the layout style guideline. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
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). | Having gone through the sources, the vast majority comport with WP:RS. That being said, I'm seeing a Tweet referenced for the MVP—is there any other source that covers this BLP material that isn't a WP:SPS? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | See 4. We need cited sources to back up claims about player performance; we can't just impute that sort of thing ourselves. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig checks out A-OK. I haven't noticed any close paraphrasing in the article during my source check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article seems to address the main aspects of the game. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article seems reasonably focused on the article's subject and avoids going into excessive detail. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | There appears to be some language in the article that isn't directly supported by sources and characterizes player performance. For example, [3] is cited for the fact that Kansas quarterback Jalon Daniels performed to expectations, but the article doesn't appear to say anything of expectations going in. Neither does the article cited at the end of the sentence. When discussing expectations of how players would perform, we need sourcing that talks to that; we can't just use our own feeling to characterize the performance. Other language in the "aftermath" section (i.e. several controversial calls noted by analysts) seem to stretch a bit beyond what sources say (the cited source doesn't attribute to outside analysts, and only two calls were mentioned, not several). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No recent edit wars detected. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
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. | Images all are on Commons, and permission was accepted by VRT on them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image captions seem relevant and suitable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | On hold for now, pending some fixes above and another read-through for spelling/grammar/more detailed fact-checking. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
|
I'll take a read-through and update the table as I go along. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've read through for the first time, and I'm placing on hold. There are a few smaller issues that need fixing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk Thank you for the review! I fixed the caps on "draft" and replaced the tweet with an ESPN article. The language you pointed out has been removed (I decided removing altogether was probably more simple than trying to find a ton of references to allow them to be left in, and the information is just as valuable without the commentary-style analysis). If there's anything else that needs correcting let me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- @PCN02WPS: I've added a few more comments above after another read through. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk Cleaned up the points in 1a (including all instances of "yard-line") and tried to fix all of the "analysts noted" and the analysis-y stuff with attribution or removal of the content. I also cleaned up the passive voice especially as it related to the pre-game sections; there is still a little bit but only in places where I feel it is appropriate; attribution and active voice have replaced all of the inappropriate uses that I found. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- GA it is. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk Cleaned up the points in 1a (including all instances of "yard-line") and tried to fix all of the "analysts noted" and the analysis-y stuff with attribution or removal of the content. I also cleaned up the passive voice especially as it related to the pre-game sections; there is still a little bit but only in places where I feel it is appropriate; attribution and active voice have replaced all of the inappropriate uses that I found. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- @PCN02WPS: I've added a few more comments above after another read through. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk Thank you for the review! I fixed the caps on "draft" and replaced the tweet with an ESPN article. The language you pointed out has been removed (I decided removing altogether was probably more simple than trying to find a ton of references to allow them to be left in, and the information is just as valuable without the commentary-style analysis). If there's anything else that needs correcting let me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)