Talk:2022 Gasparilla Bowl

2022 Gasparilla 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: August 26, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 2022 Gasparilla Bowl appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 2022 Gasparilla Bowl was the first edition of the game to feature two Power Five teams?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Gasparilla Bowl.

Wikipedia

College football Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tampa Bay (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa BayWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa BayTemplate:WikiProject Tampa BayTampa Bay articles

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Aoidh (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the 2022 Gasparilla Bowl was the first edition of the game to feature two Power Five teams? Source: [1]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Manny's Deli

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 22:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Overall, the hook and article satisfy all requirements for approval, I see no reason not to send this hook forward. Good job! JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Gasparilla Bowl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Hi. Just to let you know that the review is done and the article has been placed on hold.

@SpaceEconomist192: Thank you for your patience; everything has been either taken care of or responded to below. I am traveling for the next few days so I will try to get to the Cure Bowl article as soon as I can. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Great job on the article and review, thank you for your compliance. I'm passing it. If the Cure Bowl article could be taken until the end of the month I would greatly appreciate. Good luck on the 2022 Bowls serie, I hope you can bring them to good topic. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 22:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The 14th annual Gasparilla Bowl, the game began at... → The 14th annual Gasparilla Bowl began at... Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Sponsored by mortgage loan company Union Home Mortgage... There's no need for a whole sentence about the sponsor, you can just write, The 2022 Gasparilla Bowl, officially known as Union Home Mortgage Gasparilla for sponsorship reasons,... Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Per MOS:INTRO, the lead section should be accessible to a broad audience. The 2nd paragraph has way too much football terminology, I couldn't understand whole sentences. If possible, try to substitute jargon like first down, punt, field goal, drive, muffed punt and turnover to layman's terms. Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] ...against the Missouri, from... → ...against the Missouri Tigers, from... You reference the team as the Tigers a few lines down, I think it's better if you give the full name of the team on the first sentence of the section. Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] They faced four ranked teams during the season... What is a ranked team? Is it possible to wikilink that? Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] ...they fell further behind the sticks with another sack... Are the sticks the goal post? Or is this slang? If so, then it's advisable to use a literal expression. Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Per MOS:LEADCITE, inline citations in the lead section should be avoided if possible. The two inline citations in The 14th annual Gasparilla Bowl, the game began at 6:35 p.m. EST and was aired on ESPN... should then be removed and the respective content added further down in the article. Done. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] ...draft preparations: defensive ends Isaiah McGuire... wikilink to «defensive ends». Done. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] ...and umpire Apollo Martin. wikilink to «umpire». Added links to "umpire" and "referee". PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Checked references #1, #4, #7, #11, #12 and #17 of this version The #4 source (College Football Poll) doesn't seem reliable for that kind of information. Removed this information. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] The #7 source (Missouri Tigers Athletics) is down, at least for me. Fixed. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] The #12 source (247 Sports) doesn't cover that Demon Deacons lost JJ Roberts to the transfer portal. Added source. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The favorite and attendance number stated in the infobox need sources. Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass
(c) (original research)	From my read, the #11 (College Football News) source doesn't cover this sentence, While the passing offense was certainly viewed... it needs to be rewritten or removed from the article. These are the quotes that I used to source that: "but the offense is going to throw for over 300 yards, the defense will give up a ton of big plays" (referring to Wake in both cases), "it’s not doing much against anyone who wants to throw, and it gave up 30 points or more in its last five games" (referring to the Wake defense), "The Wake Forest pass defense doesn’t get out of bed in the morning without giving up 220 yards through the air.", "but QB Sam Hartman kept bombing away with the offense hitting 300 yards through the air in each of the last six games and in nine of 11." (Hartman is Wake's QB). ...largely dependent on the ratio of pass plays to rush plays that were run by the opposing offense. Not sure if this sentence checks out with the above quote since there's no mentions of rush plays nor that they are dependent of anything. I got that from this quote: "The Wake Forest pass defense doesn’t get out of bed in the morning without giving up 220 yards through the air. When it does allow fewer, it’s usually because the offense on the other side is too busy running." PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Mizzou's scoring offense was brought into question by analysts..., this whole sentence is also not supported by the #11, it's WP:OR. It must be removed. I used this quote to source that: "Missouri’s offense is balanced and can grind a bit, but it’s not built to get into wild shootouts. It takes 30 points to beat Wake Forest – it’s 5-0 when allowing fewer and 2-5 when giving up more – but the Tigers have only hit that mark against Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, and Abilene Christian." PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Ops, my bad. It does confer. They stalled for several plays..., the fist part of this sentence is also not supported by the #17 source (ESPN). It must be removed. Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Needing a score late in the game, Missouri's..., same rationale as above. Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig's Copyvio Detector says violation unlikely (6,5%).	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	A post-match section should be included in the article. Don't forget to update the lead afterwards. Done PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass
(b) (focused)	The game summary is a tad too detailed but not the enough to fail.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
While the passing offense was certainly viewed as a strength... Why is it so certain? «Certainly» is a word to watch, it needs to be removed. Removed PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] ~~Mizzou's scoring offense was brought into question by analysts... «by analysts» is a weasel word, the sentence needs to be rewritten.~~ The whole sentence is OR, see above. Wake Forest started strongly on offense..., this sentence is OR and fails WP:NPOV, it needs to be removed. Removed the first part of the sentence. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] ...with Missouri digging themselves into a hole..., same rationale as above. Reworded PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] ...of the good field position..., remove «good», same rationale as above. Removed PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Everything peaceful	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	This article could benefit from images. Captain, head coach and stadium photos would be great. Added images of the stadium and both head coaches. PCN02WPS (talk \| contribs) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The images are relevant and have a suitable caption	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
y}}	The reviewer has left no comments here

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions