Talk:Buccaneers–Packers rivalry

Latest comment: 6 months ago by ZooBlazer in topic GA Review

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 Bruxton talk 18:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Buccaneers–Packers rivalry; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Only one issue noticed; @Gonzo fan2007: In the lead, it states The loss was part of the Buccaneers 0–14 record in 1976, the first time an NFL team lost every game in their season. Off the top of my head I know that last part is incorrect: many early teams, e.g. the 1926 Louisville Colonels, lost all of their games in a season. How do you think this should be re-worded? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BeanieFan11: Nice, thanks for the compliment. I will look for an open slot and check this out for promotion. Bruxton (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

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:Buccaneers–Packers rivalry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this. I'll try to have it done in the next day or two. From a quick glance the article looks like it's in pretty good shape already. -- ZooBlazer 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi ZooBlazer, thanks for the review and happy to work with you on any improvements. No rush, I am generally available :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great job overall! I didn't find any major issues. Mostly minor things with some that could also be considered nitpicks. Once you address the issues below I'll do spotchecks. -- ZooBlazer 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it 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:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


  • Images are all properly licensed
  • Spotchecks - Ref numbers are accurate as of this edit
    • Randomly checked refs #4, #16, #25, #46, and #52. All support the information they are supposed to in the article.
  • Plagiarism check - Earwig detected no issues
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.