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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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:
| ![]() |
bracket
[edit]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)
game summary
[edit]will anyone do the game summary for the sugar bowl? KameronS333 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
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 CSJJ104 talk 13:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- ... 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
PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC).
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)
- @Theleekycauldron: Replaced with AP source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
full review needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Replaced with AP source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Symbol_confirmed.svg/16px-Symbol_confirmed.svg.png)
- @BeanieFan11: thanks for the review! QPQ has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- 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)
Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will continue reviewing later today. Alexeyevitch(talk) 13:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexeyevitch Everything has been addressed or responded to above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexeyevitch Responses below, one issue fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alexeyevitch Everything has been addressed or responded to above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will continue reviewing later today. Alexeyevitch(talk) 13:42, 18 August 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. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
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). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- C-Class college football articles
- Mid-importance college football articles
- WikiProject College football articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- C-Class Louisiana articles
- Low-importance Louisiana articles
- WikiProject Louisiana articles
- C-Class New Orleans articles
- Unknown-importance New Orleans articles
- WikiProject New Orleans articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles