Talk:2024 Rose Bowl

GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Wikipedia.

2024 Rose Bowl is part of the "2023–24 College Football Playoff" series, a current good topic candidate. A good topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

2024 Rose Bowl has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 23, 2024. (Reviewed version).

College football Mid‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship was copied or moved into 2024 Rose Bowl. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

A fact from 2024 Rose Bowl appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Michigan and Alabama entered the 2024 Rose Bowl as the two college football teams with the most all-time wins?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Rose Bowl.

Wikipedia

bracket

will anyone create the bracket for the college football playoff this year? michigan, washington, texas, and alabama are in. KameronS333 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

game summary

will anyone do the game summary for the rose bowl? KameronS333 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Michigan and Alabama entered the 2024 Rose Bowl as the two winningest programs in college football history?

Source: https://mgoblue.com/documents/2023/12/24/20231224-fbl-notes-alabama.pdf

ALT1: ... that Michigan and Alabama entered the 2024 Rose Bowl as the two college football teams with the most all-time wins? Source: same as ALT0
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Page Ackerman
Comment: 3,352 B → 16,094 B (4.8x expansion, a tiny bit short of 5x - any reviewers feeling generous and in the "close enough" spirit would be appreciated)

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 77 past nominations.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I was confused by the word winningest which upon googling seems to be a term only used in the U.S. or North America, so maybe the word could be removed. Sahaib (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sahaib: added reworded ALT1. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Ready to go. Sahaib (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Arconning (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:2024 Rose Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 02:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this! Comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Arconning (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Here are my comments, made some minor copy-edits. Hope they can be addressed! Arconning (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning Everything has been taken care of or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS

Mentions of winningest should be replaced with something more formal.
- Done, using the same language as the DYK hook. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

bowl games which concluded, replace which with that.
The winner qualified through to the 2024 College Football Playoff, wondering if this should be ...for the 2024 College Football Playoff?
- Done both. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

No issues, nice work.

Teams

regular season, wondering if this should be hyphenated?
- No, "regular season" is a commonly used noun phrase in college football and is never hyphenated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game summary

After two plays for no gain,, is this an American football term that should be wikilinked?
- There really isn't a single applicable term for this, all I'm saying is that they did not gain or lose any yardage. I'll reword to make this clearer. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
. Michigan took a knee to run the remaining seconds off of the clock and send the game to overtime., "took a knee", same with preceding comment
- I linked quarterback kneel at the end of the paragraph about the second quarter but since it's worded differently here I linked it again. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tables are formatted properly.

Aftermath

Optional. I was wondering if the last could be merged somewhere?
- Where would you suggest? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - At a second check, this would be better like that lol.

Images

All images are relevant to the article and have proper licensing.

Refs

Earwig's okay.
Random ref checks: 1, 14, 21, 24, 37, 43, good.
I'd like to question the reliability of 29, Football Zebras. If it's reliable, it should probably use it's name rather than the website to follow consistency with the ref layout
- I haven't had problems with the site in GANs past (see 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship, for example), so I believe it's good. Everything I've found on there has been backed up by other sources including official game statsheets, as well. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

No ongoing edit war, broad and focused info, neutral.

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

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.