Talk:2024 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game/GA1

GA Review

Passed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:08, 15 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.

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

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Discussion

There has never been an edit war or revert on this page so it passes that part. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All images seem fine and have captions. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no spelling errors. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or grammatical errors. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to follow the 5 WP:MOS criteria. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no major issues from Earwig tool. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text isn't biased, its giving equal attention to both teams achievements in the game. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems broad, I can't think of any major ommissions. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see too much detail. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

I'll check every five sources (5, 10, etc.) History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 needs to say they beat number 4 Marquette. It doesn't say the team was number 4, so that needs to be fixed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article used a different ranking which had them at No. 5. I have replaced that source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 needs to say they beat Utah to make the Sweet 16. It does this here; "Purdue roll into Sweet 16 with runaway win against Utah State". History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15 needs to say that UConn was ranked No. 6 in the preseason AP Poll. It does this here; "UConn men's basketball team ranked sixth in AP Top 25 preseason poll". History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20 needs to say that the huskies won all three games en route to the Big East championships. It does not say this. This needs to be fixed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it says and the Huskies beat No. 10 Marquette 73-57 on Saturday night to win the tournament for the first time since rejoining the conference four years ago. You cannot win the tournament without losing a game, so for the source to clarify that they won the single-elimination tournament (and didn't lose a game) would be redundant. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

25 needs to say that UConn beat Alabama to get to the championship. It does this here; "UConn outlasts Alabama, will face Purdue for NCAA title". History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS, to fix these issues or I have to fail the article, considering that I only check five source and two of them were wrong. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@History6042 see above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, good job, I'll pass this. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:07, 15 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.