Talk:2019 NFC Championship Game/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: M4V3R1CK32 (talk · contribs) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(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]

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) 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.

Broad in its coverage:

(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).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[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]

Notes

^ 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.
^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ 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.

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Generally quite good! I did make copy edits throughout eliminating some loaded language (e.g. finally got the ball moving). One thing here that I think should be addressed in the Legacy section. Background the Packers hired Matt LaFleur to be the team's new head coach.[1] The Packers started the 2019 season strong, winning their first three games; they entered their bye week in Week 11 with a record of 8–2. Coming out of their bye week, the Packers -- the Packers... the Packers... the Packers... repetitive. Not disqualifying for a GA though. Legacy His successful season and this playoff helped establish Mostert, after he had spent time on six different teams to start his career. -- I feel like there is a word or two missing here. Established Mostert as what?	On hold
(b) (MoS)	Copy edits made for some minor MOS issues. Good to go!	Pass

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Citations blend inline links to outlets and naming the outlet vs just listing the website without a link, e.g. The New York Times vs. ESPN.com. They should be consistent throughout per the guideline here. I would drop the ".com" identifiers from the website names and add links where needed in each instance. Alternatively, you could remove the links to NYT, AP, etc. so that it is consistent throughout.	On hold
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources are largely ESPN, NYT, the NFL, all good to go. There is one WP:FORBESCON source used, to reference the win over Seattle. FORBESCON is deprecated, so even though this is a super minor detail being sourced to FORBESCON, it should be replaced by something else. Should be no shortage of options. Background Near the end of the 2018 NFL season, the Green Bay Packers fired longtime head coach Mike McCarthy after two consecutive losing seasons. -- citation needed	On hold
(c) (original research)	Instances of some minor editorialization have been removed. G2G	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Sourcing spot check: Source 1: Good Source 6: Good Source 8: Good Source 10: Good Source 14: I don't think it's accurate to say the game plan was recognized by the NYT, but performance definitely. Source 22: Good Source 25: Good, though I'd probably list this as "Bears Wire" in the citation instead of USA TODAY. They've got their own news team, they're just part of the Gannett/USA Today network.	On hold

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Complete coverage. Good to go!	Pass
(b) (focused)	Adds some nice context around the game that helps rather than detracts from the article. Good work!	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Editorilization has been addressed. Good here.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	Several small things remaining to be addressed, the biggest of which is the citation consistency issue. Overall, very good work, and very close! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[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] Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.

[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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]