Talk:4th and 26/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 17:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Pre-review

Prior to an in-depth review, I will analyze the article for any criteria for immediate failure.

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
• Looks to be at the very worst close to meeting the criteria upon my first check.
2. It contains copyright violations
• Passes Earwig. No plagiarism found here.
3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}})
• No banners present, no banners needed.
4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page
• Stable history, no edit warring here!
5. It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article
• N/A.

Awesome sauce! This isn't an immediate fail.

Review

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   Went through and fixed any typos I saw, however:
   • "What are the odds that a drive containing a 4th-and-26 from the 25 would end with a successful field goal? According to the Markov model, a whopping 1 out of 175"
     • This could be paraphrased to make it more concise.
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
   Just one issue:
   • The lead section only summarizes the events leading up to the game and the game itself, with only has a half-sentence to show the game's effect. No mention in particular of why this game was special, as a casual reader may not know that converting on a 4th and 26 is extremely difficult. Mentioning a few pieces of information from the analysis and/or legacy section would help with this, as it demonstrates the lasting effect that the game had.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   It does indeed.
   2. 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);
   Upon spot-checking sources, ran into a couple of issues:
   • "The Eagles success primarily came from quarterback Donovan McNabb"
     • The cited source said that the Eagles offense revolves around McNabb, but not that the McNabb was the primary man responsible for the success of the Eagles, especially because they had two Pro Bowlers on defense, and the cited source also takes notice of the defensive threat the Eagles had.
   • "with the failure on 4th and 26 noted as the key reason."
     • The Packers did not mention this in their statement, according to the cited statement. Maybe replace with "following criticisms from the media and fans after the 4th and 26 play" or something related?
   3. it contains no original research; and
   No original research found.
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
   Nope!
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   Background, the game, and its aftermath. Covers what it needs to!
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
   Details are focused and the article doesn't meander.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Unbiased- doesn't seem to be any lean or sway to a particular team.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Stable!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   All media properly tagged in Commons.
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
   Team logos and stadium- very much relevant. Properly captioned as well.

In summary

Overall, a very well-written article about a play that I actually did not know much about before, though as a Bears fan, I took great joy in watching a Packers failure, lol. I found just a few issues, but I trust these can be addressed in relatively short order. Jordano⁵³ 19:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

[[User:|Jordano]], sorry I just noticed your review was complete! I have made changes for all your comments. Let me know if there is anything else. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Reviewed changes and it looks good to me! Happy to pass it. Congratulations and thank you for your fine work on this article. Jordano⁵³ 15:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)