Talk:2013 Cotton Bowl Classic/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Mostly fine. Any errors are minor and probably preferential.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are a couple sections that need citations. The second paragraphs of both the Texas A&M and Oklahoma sections need citations since they are statistics or facts. The first two on each of those are fine. ✅ -- Go  Phightins  !  01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article covers all required information and stays on topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No issues here.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars of note. Article is stable and unlikely to change.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Quick passing as there are no images.
 * 1) Overall: I will pass this once the citation issues are fixed. Passed! Good job, and keep up the good work. :)
 * Pass/Fail: