Talk:2017–18 College Football Playoff

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:2017–18 College Football Playoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 18:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Copyvio check

Earwig shows a 3.8% which is good. Cos (X + Z) 18:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

  • The three-game playoff recorded an increase of 21% over the previous edition, an increase of what?

Sources

Sources are reliable, formatted great and no OR; I did a check of all sources while I reviewed prose. Passing article. Cos (X + Z) 16:23, 25 April 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.