Talk:Miracle in Motown/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 05:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I will take this one on. I like to try to do a little a day, depending on how I feel. This article isn't super long, so hopefully this review should take a couple of days at most. SSSB (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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, as shown by a source spot-check?

   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:

Comments

• Article is clearly stable. Rarely edited. No ongoing talk page discussions. SSSB (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Copyvio detector shows no issues. SSSB (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Needs resolving for promotion

• A wikilink to NFL playoffs would be beneficial, the concept of a post season is quite rare in Europe. SSSB (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I meant this should be wikilinked within the lead. Where it talks about a post season berth. As a European, the post season would be post superbowl. SSSB (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• In the background section, shouldn't it be "at Ford Field", not "in Ford Field"? SSSB (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "The Lions came into the game following three consecutive victories after a 1–7 start to the season, needing a win to keep their slim playoff hopes alive." This isn't within any of the sources in this section. SSSB (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Reworded and added a source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• " Ameer Abdullah's 36-yard rush being the key play of the drive." This opinion requires an in-line citation.17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• " Starks received the hand-off on the next play and then proceeded to fumble the ball forward into the end zone," not specified in the given citation. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "sacked by Julius Peppers and fumbled the ball, which he Packers recovered". should be "the Packers recovered". SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "methodical 11-play, 84-yard drive, ", Methodical is an unsourced opinion. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "A. Rodgers escaped the pocket and scrambled for a 17-yard touchdown run," source describes this as a rush, not a scramble. Either change "scramble" for "rush" or find a source that verifies this is a scramble and not a rush. The newspaper describes it as a scramble, so you could use that. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed to "rush". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "but after three consecutive rushes for -3 yards," this needs reworded. It reads like they made 3 consecutive rushing plays which went -3 yards each, not -3 yards in total. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added "for a total of". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "NFL rules state that a game cannot end on a defensive penalty," this sentence should be past tense. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• The quote box needs a citation. SSSB (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "pass based on his previous success five years earlier." should be "based on his previous successes." he was interviewed about hail marys because he had thrown several, not just this one. SSSB (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Article could benefit from one or two additional images, possibly of some of the players. Richard Rodgers who scored the game winning TD and had most recieving yards, for example. Or one or both qbs? Just a suggestion, not necessary for promotion. SSSB (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Is it worth mentioning the regular season record of the packers, which allowed them to go to the post season. Something like "It was also the start of a 3-game winning streak that would help the Packers to a 10-6 record and clinch their seventh consecutive postseason berth? SSSB (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I expanded this a little bit. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• The last sentence mentiones the "play" lots of times. Could the first instance be changed to "pass"? i.e. ("the pass won the NFL play of the year award") SSSB (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• The background could benefit with some additional information. Who was considered the favourite? How were teams performing relatively to preseason expectations? What did pundits and the teams have to say ahead of the game? SSSB (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I added that the Packers were favored. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "interception to Glover Quin, who brought the ball back to the 17-yard line." Where did Quin intercept from? SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "The Packers gained significant yardage" this seems unnecessarily vague. Either, "progressed more than x yards for the first time". Or "made it beyond the y yard line for the first time" would be better. SSSB (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "with neither team gaining significant yardage." again, seems unnecessarily vague. Can easily be more specific by saying "neither team gaining more than 20 yards on a drive." SSSB (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• "after the penalty was assessed." Assessed seems like an odd choice of word. "Applied" might be better. SSSB (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • "Assessed" is a common football term for when a penalty is applied. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Final comments

@Gonzo fan2007: looks good. A few relatively small changes that need to be made. I've also left some suggestions not needed for promotion. Placed on hold pending necessary changes. SSSB (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

SSSB thank you for the review! I just got back from a three day hike, so catching up on a few things. I will try to get to this today or tomorrow. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

SSSB, thanks again for the review. I have addressed all of your comments above. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007 it was my pleasure. Congrats on another good article. SSSB (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2024 (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.