Talk:2019 NFC Championship Game

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Raheem Mostert

• ... that in the 2019 NFC Championship Game, Raheem Mostert (pictured) became the first person in the history of the NFL to rush for more than 200 yards and score 4 touchdowns in a playoff game?

• Source: "He became the first player in NFL history to run for over 200 yards and four touchdowns in a playoff game"

• Reviewed: I Forgot That You Existed

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 55 past nominations.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC).

• I can take a look at this one over the next few days. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • My apologies that this took longer than I had expected. My review is below:

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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Having read through, this looks good to me. Earwig copyvio check looks fine. One small thing (Tyler Ervin, the Packers kick returned, muffed the return and was only able to move the ball to the eight-yard line should read Tyler Ervin, the Packers kick returner, muffed the return and was only able to move the ball to the eight-yard line), but other than that this was a smooth read. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Red-tailed hawk, I fixed the typo! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 NFC Championship Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. 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.

2. 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(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.

Notes

Review

1. 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? Updates here make this section good to go!	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Copy edits made for some minor MOS issues. Good to go!	Pass

2. 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. 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. Not disqualifying.	Pass
(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	Pass
(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.	Pass

3. 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

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

Notes	Result
Editorilization has been addressed. Good here.	Pass

5. 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

6. 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
Pass	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) Update: Happy to pass this article! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

A few items:

• Regarding Forbes, the article is written by Rob Reischel, who is an SME and thus exempts the article from WP:FORBESCON.
• The sources are consistent: newspapers are written out with their full name ({{Cite news}}), while websites have .com ({{Cite web}}). Every one of my recognized articles follows this pattern.
• Source 25: USA Today is appropriate enough for the website listing.
• The NYT article talks all about how Shanahan amplified his father's scheme and how unique the rushing approach to the game was. This is the "gameplan".

All other comments should be addressed. Thanks for the review M4V3R1CK32. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know that I agree Reischel is an SME -- having been a sports reporter for most of my professional career, I certainly don't think I am an expert on the sports I covered, including football. Writing books for a publisher known for producing "instant books" doesn't make me think that Triumph Books doesn't inspire confidence in his expertise either. The only thing the Reischel source is used for is the result of the previous game against Seattle, which there is no shortage of sources for that aren't FORBESCON. That said, I get it. It's certainly not the same kind of contribution as what that particular line in RS/P is meant to filter.
• I took another look at the guideline re:source consistency. I am not sure I agree with your interpretation exactly, and perhaps its more a question in my mind of if ESPN should be cite web or cite news (I'd probably say the latter, it's very much a news source that is published on the web, not purely a web source), but regardless, I don't think it is disqualifying. I had amended my note in the body of the review, but not the note at the end. Sorry for the confusion! This is not not an issue for promoting this article to GA status.
• Source 25 really is a separate publication. Calling it "USA Today" would be like calling the Green Bay Press-Gazette the USA Today. Still part of the same newspaper network, but if it has its own staff page and its own title at the top of the webpage, I think it should be listed as its own publication. Adding a publisher there would make sense to me and I think be most accurate. Feel free to get a third opinion on that. For what it's worth, it's not disqualifying in my eyes.
• Re: the scheme. This is where I think the disagreement lingers. Mike Shanahan is/was known as an offensive coach, and the NYT does not say Kyle amplified his father's defensive scheme, which is what the NYT is being used to support in the article. This is probably just a case of citations getting mixed around.

Here's the sentence on Wikipedia the NYT article is supporting, emphasis mine: The 49ers defensive game plan and performance were also recognized.

The NYT doesn't support "recognition of the defensive game plan". I could buy recognition of the performance, but not the game plan. Regarding the senior Shanahan's impact on the game plan, the NYT says: (Mike) Shanahan ambled through the field-level corridors at Levi’s Stadium on Sunday after witnessing his son, Kyle, the 49ers’ third-year coach, bully the Packers with a modern, devastating spin on a power running game — the Air Raid of rushing attacks. Kyle Shanahan amplified his father’s scheme with enough speed and misdirection and pre-snap subterfuge to feel comfortable calling a run on Sunday... -- that's all offensive stuff.

On the defensive effort, NYT says They won their first eight games behind a snarling defense that, on Sunday, had three sacks and three takeaways. That's pretty much it. Maybe there's something else I am missing and I'll have to eat some crow, but I think an adjustment is needed either in wording or sourcing. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 all the other stuff looks good, it's really just the game plan thing that needs sorting I think. Appreciate the collab! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

M4V3R1CK32, I revised that sentence. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 Happy to promote! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.