Talk:2024 Sugar Bowl

2024 Sugar Bowl is currently a Football good article nominee. Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Postseason college football bowl game

College football Mid‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana / New Orleans

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance).
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans.

Text and/or other creative content from 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship was copied or moved into 2024 Sugar Bowl. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from 2024 Rose Bowl was copied or moved into 2024 Sugar Bowl. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

A fact from 2024 Sugar Bowl appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Washington's participation in the 2024 Sugar Bowl marked the first appearance of any Pac-12 Conference team in the Sugar Bowl?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Sugar Bowl.

Wikipedia

bracket

will anyone create the bracket for the college football playoff this year? michigan, washington, texas, and alabama are in. KameronS333 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

game summary

will anyone do the game summary for the sugar bowl? KameronS333 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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 CSJJ104 talk 13:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Washington became the first team from the Pac-12 Conference to participate in the Sugar Bowl when they did so in 2024? Source: Associated Press
- ALT1: ... that Washington's participation in the 2024 Sugar Bowl marked the first appearance of any Pac-12 Conference team in the Sugar Bowl? Source: same as ALT0
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shapez 2
- Comment: 2,347 B → 13 kB

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 78 past nominations.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Not a full review, but a UW Sugar Bowl media guide being used as a source on a non-routine claim about itself doesn't sound right to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Theleekycauldron: Replaced with AP source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - full review needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Looks good. Awaiting QPQ. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @BeanieFan11: thanks for the review! QPQ has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 Sugar Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue reviewing later today. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch Everything has been addressed or responded to above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch Responses below, one issue fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	American English consistent throughout the article Prose is OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Washington's perfect conference record set up a rematch with Oregon in the Pac-12 Championship, where the Huskies again won by three points. Source does not mention the word "perfect". The word "perfect" is an interpretation of UW's record (Washington (13-0) was the last Pac-12 team to make the CFP...); I have changed to "unbeaten" to be more clear. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Clean up the links per MOS:OL Is there anything in particular that you think is overlinked? PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] State names. Duplicate links could also see some cleanup too. Alexeyevitch^(talk) Dupelinks have been removed. As for state names, I can't find any that have even been included, much less linked, besides "New Orleans, Louisiana" in the infobox/lead. If you're talking about links like "Michigan", "Washington", "Texas", "Alabama", etc., those are linked to teams, not states; the college football convention is to refer to teams by their common names as opposed to the nicknames or the full names of the school (those four teams represent the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Alabama, respectively). I believe these links are fully appropriate. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 15:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] As a reader from Christchurch, New Zealand with little knowledge about this topic, I'm satisfied with the lede and not much adjusting required here. The legnth is OK aswell.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	~~A substantial but not overwhelming TOC.~~
	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).	References are OK. I haven't spotted anything 'suspicious'. All references could get an archived-URL. I suggest using the IABot Management tool. IABot only archived 1 source and lagged out a couple times. I'm not going to keep trying since it's not required by the GA criteria, but I guess 1 is better than 0. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please identify what page(s) the content is cited on I'm not sure that's required by the GA criteria, but I can try when I get a bit more time. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] OK. This one is not required by the GA criteria and is optional. Alexeyevitch^(talk)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Analyzed the Background section. Source doesn't mention Caesars Superdome but I assume that it mentions its former name(s): Louisiana Superdome and formerly Mercedes-Benz Superdome. Yes, that is the same stadium. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Analyzed the College Football Playoff section and needs attention on making sure the refrences support the content in the article. More detail about the discrepancies you found would be appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] ~~Analyzed the Teams section~~ Analyzed most of the Washington section but was skeptical about this: It was their second CFP appearance, the first being a loss to No. 1 Alabama in the 2016 Peach Bowl and this Washington finished the regular season with an undefeated 12–0 record which included a three-point home win over No. 8 Oregon on October 14. ESPN mentions October 15. First quote can be verified by the bowl list on the first page or the season-by-season scores (Bama game mentioned on p.176). Not sure what to tell you about the second quote; ESPN article was published on October 14 and says the game was played on the 14th, which was indeed a Saturday. October 15 is not mentioned in the ESPN article. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] ~~Analyzed the Texas section.~~ ~~Analyzed the Aftermath section~~ Analyzed the Summary section but was skeptical about this: The pregame coin toss was won by Washington, who deferred their choice to the second half, thereby giving Texas possession of the ball to begin the game. It could be reworded to match content in the source. I had the wrong game's stats linked; fixed the citation. The cited material is on p.11: Washington won the toss and has deferred to the second half. TEX will receive and WAS will defend the north goal. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots something nothing of major concern. Content could be slightly reworded to avoid copyright issues. More detail about the similarities you found would be appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Don't know why Earwig isn't working for me at the moment. Will try again later today with additional comments. Alexeyevitch^(talk) I am back now. I noticed some stuff which could be re-worded slightly to avoid copyvio problems. Ciro Procuna and Ramiro Pruneda → Ramiro Pruneda and Ciro Procuna. Molly McGrath and Katie George → Katie George and Molly McGrath. Earwig spots nothing else of concern. Alexeyevitch^(talk) I hardly think the wording of these two names in one of two particular possible arrangements on just these two occasions is a concern, especially considering (with the second two names) they are part of a larger list of names that is arranged that way because it corresponds to the specific commentary arrangement on the broadcast (play-by-play commentator, then analyst, then sideline reporters). PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 15:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Y - No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Y - No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Y - No visible POV issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Y - No stability issues.
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.	Y - Suitable copyright statuses
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Y - Looks OK
	7. Overall assessment.