Talk:2022 College Football Playoff National Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

someone make the box show the big score numbers[edit]

I don’t know how to do it Eg224 (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind :) Eg224 (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk), Dmoore5556 (talk), and Kevinthomas20 (talk). Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk) at 06:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • - Article is long enough, was expanded 5x within a week of nomination, and is well sourced. As someone who doesn't know college football and it players/coaches, I think ALT2 is the better hook that would appeal more broadly to sport fans. The age old story of facing your previous team. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 to T:DYK/P1

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 College Football Playoff National Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NSNW (talk · contribs) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I will be reviewing this nomination soon, will be finished in a few days. NSNW (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

References:[edit]

  • [1] and [3] are twitter posts, which are generally unreliable per WP:Reliable sources, there should be better sources out there.
    • No. 1 replaced; No. 3 was added by another user and I decided to keep it per WP:SELFSOURCE; if you don't think that applies I'll remove it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an expert on twitter posts but I would prefer a different source, I'm sure sources on who international announcers are that are reliable are out there somewhere. If you have trouble finding any I can help you with that. NSNW (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am indeed having trouble finding something - if you could help out that would be great. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I looked over the tweet and have determined it is appropriate in this circumstance. NSNW (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* [4], [5], and [6] could be better sources, (I'm unsure if they are reliable or not).

  • (Reference 13), Is Marca a reliable source? Please explain. Same thing with (Reference 24) with NJ.com.
  • (Reference 26), Why is a source from Paris better than a local american source?
  • (Reference 34), (Reference 43), and (Reference 45), Why is SB Nation a reliable source?
  • (Reference 57), "Awful Announcing" doesn't sound very reliable.
  • (Reference 59), How is Sports Video Group a reliable source?
    • I included that reference because of the graphic (from ESPN, not SVG) that displayed all of the channels and whatnot, though I can try to find a replacement if you want. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reference 61), Same as Ref 59
    • Removed that last sentence, most of the sources I found upon searching looked a little iffy. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness:[edit]

  • There is barely any information in the "Background" and "College football playoff" sections. Surely there is more information out there about these particular topics. I know GA doesn't require comprehensiveness but I feel like more info should be included in those areas before I pass requirement three.
    • Is there anything in specific you'd recommend putting here? Happy to expand it but I want to make sure we're on the same page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more of an explanation on how Lucas Oil Stadium was chosen as the place of the game, (on a side note I am a native Indianan), and maybe some of the preparation for the game in the stadium (the whole section just seems dull). Also on the College football playoff section it would be nice to see some more explanation of the previous playoff games, I see you put some description in the (Alabama) and (Georgia) sub sections, but try to work some of that in there. NSNW (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been having some computer issues recently so if you could afford me a few more days than normal to make these improvements, I'd appreciate it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing, I'll add some more comments while I'm at it. NSNW (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some more background on Lucas Oil in that section and I'll expand the CFP subsection below it later today. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done. NSNW (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given the College Football Playoff section some more background and detail; happy to add more if there's something specific you think would be good to have there. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NSNW Hi there - just wanted to give you a quick ping in case you didn't see this last message. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay! I was in the hospital for a broken toe. I will add more questions now that I can. NSNW (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NSNW I'm terribly sorry about that - hope you're back to feeling better soon! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok now that I have fully reviewed the article again I don't see any other problems that need to be addressed. Congrats! NSNW (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:[edit]

Words to watch:[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_College_Football_Playoff_National_Championship&oldid=1196907796"