Talk:2015–16 College Football Playoff/GA1
Appearance
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 00:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Stable?
[edit]Yes Cos (X + Z) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio?
[edit]Earwig shows a 3.8% due to simple phrases such as "the top four teams". Cos (X + Z) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]- sources are styled well.
- all sources are reliable except for [32] which is a blog.
doing a spot check of all the sources in 4 rounds.This passes.
- Round 1
- [9].
- [27].
- [17].
- [39].
- [15].
- [7].? can't access
- [8].? Source says Baylor was No. 4 not No. 6.
- In case you're still wanting an answer to this, Baylor was No. 4 in the AP poll but No. 6 in the CFP poll; the newspaper is using the AP but this article uses CFP rankings. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Promoting. Cos (X + Z) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
-
- [13].
- [6].
Prose
[edit]- and Iowa rise to No. 6 following an eight-point win at Indiana. "rise" --> "rose".
- Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:17, 16 December 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.