Talk:2020 NFC Championship Game

2020 NFC Championship Game has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 14, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Green Bay Packers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Bay Packers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Green Bay Packers 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.Green Bay PackersWikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay PackersTemplate:WikiProject Green Bay PackersGreen Bay Packers
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Football League: Buccaneers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL 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.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Buccaneers task force.

Wisconsin Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from 2020 NFC Championship Game appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 January 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that with the Green Bay Packers' loss in the 2020 NFC Championship Game, Aaron Rodgers "became the first quarterback in NFL history to lose four straight NFC Championship Games"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 NFC Championship Game.

Wikipedia

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 SL93 talk 22:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that with the Green Bay Packers loss in the 2020 NFC Championship Game, Aaron Rodgers "became the first quarterback in NFL history to lose four straight NFC Championship Games"?

Source: "With Sunday's loss to the Bucs, Rodgers became the first quarterback in NFL history to lose four straight NFC Championship Games."

Reviewed: Conestoga wagon and Mother Solomon

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 54 past nominations.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Please provide a second QPQ as soon as possible as DYK is currently in backlog mode and thus experienced DYK regulars need to provide two QPQs per nom. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While this fact offends me on a personal level it unfortuantly meets all the requirements. Earwig has less then 20% similarity and both QPQ are done. Well written.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per another Dykn I'm writting some additional words, the hook is cited inline and the page was moved to the main space day of nomination. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:2020 NFC Championship Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: M4V3R1CK32 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 12 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)	the Packers settled for a field goal to decrease the Buccaneers lead to five points. The Buccaneers got the ball with just over two minutes left in the game. The Buccaneers converted three first downs -- the Buccaneers...the Buccaneers...the Buccaneers... repetitive here. Not disqualifying. Other minor copy edits made throughout to address some minor tone/editorialization.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	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. 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)	Citations are largely to appropriate sources like the NYT, Green Bay Press-Gazette, USA Today, etc. There is one WP:FORBESCON source that should be replaced with a more reliable source despite its usage for noncontroversial information. Source spot-check: Source 2: Good Source 5: Good Source 13: Good Source 19: Good Source 20: Does not support the sentence it is attached to. Source 24: I'm not entirely sure which sentence this source is meant to support. I understand that it kind of supports all of them, but I think moving the citation or adding another reference to it would make things more clear. Source 27: Good Updates have been made to pass this.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Neither team took full advantage taking the ball away though, with each team only scoring seven points off of turnovers. -- this isn't supported by the source and reads as opinion. Updates have been made to pass this.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Good to go.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Well-covered throughout. Good work!	Pass
(b) (focused)	Added context adds much benefit to the reader. I think this is good to go!	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Minor cleanup for some editorialization has been completed, making this good to go.	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)	Good to go.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Good to go.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Overall very good! A couple of small comments and this will be ready for promotion. Updates have been made and I am happy to pass this. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A few things:

Same response as the 2019 NFC Championship GA comment regarding Forbes SME and the source consistency regarding writing out newspapers versus using .com for websites.
Can you clarify on Ref 24, which you are talking about (it is used twice, 24A or 24B?).

Thanks M4V3R1CK32. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 24B, apologies for the lack of clarity.

Regarding the Reischel/FORBESCON source, I think the case for usage here is less strong than the 2019 game. Equally noncontroversial, sure, but using it purely for listing the underdog according to Vegas seems unnecessary to me. Also in looking at that sentence again, Britannica (source 18) does not support that sentence. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M4V3R1CK32 I removed Ref 18, not sure what that was there for. Likely just a drafting mistake. Reischel worked for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for 20 years, has been a sports editor for five different newspapers for the last 26 years and has been with Forbes for 6, all covering the Packers. He has also published a number of books on the Packers, even if you may consider them "pay to publish" books. I think this satisfies the SME requirement, especially for something fairly non-contentious like this.

Ref 21 and 23 cover the previous 3 sentences, which are a blend of the criticism LaFleur faced. Paragraph 7 of Ref 23 and the section under "Second guessing" in Ref 21 to be specific. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 I can appreciate Reischel's credentials, I perused his LinkedIn. I think the broader point is we could use a source with no questions about its reliability for the game odds (which, frankly, I am not sure the betting odds are encyclopedic, but whether to include that sentence or not isn't really an issue to me) instead of a FORBESCON. Why use a source flagged as generally unreliable (irrespective of thoughts on Reischel being an SME) when reliable sources have the same info? I think this usage is fine, generally. It's certainly not disqualifying, but there are other sources (CBS Sports, ESPN) that have the odds and don't have the baggage.

I'm good with that interpretation for source 23. Source has been corrected for Source 20, so that is also good. Happy to promote! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[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]