Talk:2021 Illinois vs. Penn State football game/GA1

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be taking a look at this article for the January 2022 GAN backlog drive. If you haven't already signed up, please feel free to join in! Although QPQ is not required, if you're feeling generous, I also have a list of GA nominations of my own right here.

Infobox and lede

 * That the game took place during week eight of the 2021 FBS football season is not mentioned in the body
 * ✅ – added to first sentence of "teams" section
 * Link "Happy Valley" to Happy Valley (Pennsylvania) – despite living less than an hour outside of PSU, I saw the name and my mind first went to California
 * "with each team missing" "as both teams missed"
 * Link touchdown and field goal upon their first mentions in the third paragraph
 * Link touchdown and field goal upon their first mentions in the third paragraph
 * Link touchdown and field goal upon their first mentions in the third paragraph

Teams

 * "Illinois'" "Illinois's" per MOS:'S (continues throughout article)
 * Should add final scores for the games listed in both the Illinois and Penn State sections
 * Should add final scores for the games listed in both the Illinois and Penn State sections

Illinois

 * See above, broadly

Penn State

 * See above, broadly
 * Delink Wisconsin, already linked in the Illinois section

Pre-game

 * "relatively easily" "with relative ease"
 * "Illinois'" "Illinois's" per MOS:'S
 * "Illinois'" "Illinois's" per MOS:'S

First half

 * Link a number of football terms: touchback, interception, Punt (gridiron football), touchdown, Turnover (gridiron football), fumble, quarterback sack
 * First sentence in the second paragraph does not specify that this was the start of the second quarter – read from the first paragraph, it would make sense, but not necessarily to a reader only looking at that para
 * First sentence in the second paragraph does not specify that this was the start of the second quarter – read from the first paragraph, it would make sense, but not necessarily to a reader only looking at that para

Second half

 * "got the ball back" "received possession"

Overtimes

 * Due to NCAA rules instituted prior to the 2021 season, the teams began alternating two-point conversion attempts, rather than drives from the 25-yard-line, starting in the third overtime (instead of the fifth overtime). Some clarity improvement required: I believe this is saying that, prior to the 2021 season, the conversions would begin after five overtimes, but now they start after only three. That took a few tries to parse out
 * ✅ – you're correct, and I reworded this to try to better reflect that

Scoring summary

 * Good

Team statistics

 * Good

Individual statistics

 * Good

Aftermath

 * the sixth to reach at least seven overtimes Phrasing is vague; sixth in American football generally, specifically NCAA, or specifically Big Ten? Future sentences suggest the middle, but this should be clarified right away
 * ✅ – you are correct that I was referring to the NCAA, and I have clarified that.
 * A little more elaboration requested on why this criticism resulted; I assume that the new overtime format is what led to the length of the game, hence the critique
 * ✅ – I tried my best to expand on this
 * "absurd" does not read as neutral
 * "Illinois'" "Illinois's" per MOS:'S
 * he was previously the head coach at Wisconsin and Arkansas before arriving at Illinois Redundant; can either take out "previously" or "before arriving at Illinois"
 * ✅ – removed the last part of the sentence.
 * he was previously the head coach at Wisconsin and Arkansas before arriving at Illinois Redundant; can either take out "previously" or "before arriving at Illinois"
 * ✅ – removed the last part of the sentence.

General comments

 * Image used is properly licensed and relevant
 * No stability concerns in the revision history
 * Copyvio score looks good

Putting the article on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Please feel free to ping me with questions, and let me know when you're finished! —  Ghost River  16:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have done my best to address your comments. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making those changes, particularly with regards to the references; I know SBNation always comes up for me when I try to work on GANs and it's a pain to find other ones. Everything looks good on my end, passing now! —  Ghost River  22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)