Talk:2021 Bahamas Bowl/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

• "The seventh edition of the Bahamas Bowl (after the 2020 edition was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic)," → "The seventh annual Bahamas Bowl, as well as the first to take place after the COVID-19 pandemic forced the cancellation of the 2020 game,"
  •  Done – changed to "the cancellation of the 2020 edition" to avoid repetition with the part of the sentence that follows. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• The cancellation of the 2020 game is also neither mentioned in the body nor referenced in the lede, so one of those facts should be corrected
  •  Done – added 2020 cancellation to the "Teams" section. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link quarterback and rushing yards in the second paragraph
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link touchdown pass in the third paragraph
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Teams

• "all-time" → "ever"
  •  Removed rather than changed, since that sounded more natural to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• "This was the first edition" → "It was also the first edition"
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link bowl game in "13th bowl game appearance"
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders

• "dropping their overall record"
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Last sentence of this section needs a reference attached
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Toledo Rockets

• "this time on the road against Central Michigan"
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Also needs a citation at the end of the paragraph
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Game summary

Pre-game

• Link the first instance of rushing yards
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• "MTSU" is used for the first time in this section, everywhere else it's "Middle Tennessee". I'd put (MTSU) in parentheses when the team is first introduced in the background para
  •  Done – added abbreviation after first mention in "Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders" section under "Teams". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Link quarterback
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

First half

• Link Kickoff (gridiron football)
  •  Done PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Use an en dash instead of a hyphen after "capitalize off of this miscue"
  •  Not done – as far as I can tell, an en-dash is already in use as opposed to a hyphen. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Second half

• See above about en dashes
  •  Not done – the one instance I can find already uses an en-dash. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Scoring summary

• Good

Statistics

• Good

References

• I used a script to fix some dashes, so now everything looks good formatting-wise
• SB Nation is not the best source; if another reference can be found, I'd prefer those be swapped in
  •  Done – swapped references No. 8, 9, 20, 21, 29, and 31. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• No images, so those criteria cannot be assessed
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Earwig copyvio score looks good

Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions, and please let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 22:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• @GhostRiver: thanks very much for the speedy review! I've made these changes (with the exception of two, see the en-dash issue), if you wouldn't mind looking it over again. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making those changes! The script I ran to fix the other dash issues also picked up the ones I noted earlier, so everything looks good, and I'm happy to give this article a pass! — GhostRiver 19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)