Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA3

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 19:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, PK-WIKI. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this nomination for the GA criteria. I'll look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:NCAA logo.svg, the infobox image, has a valid public domain licence.
 * File:First ever year-end college football ranking from The Sun newspaper (1901).jpg: The newspaper crop may not have the correct licence, though it is well within the public domain as it was published before 1928, so it doesn't really matter much anyway. I'd suggest exporting it to Commons and changing the licencing where necessary (though this is not a GA criterion)
 * File:College Football Champions Map.png uses a map of the United States, which may be copyrighted; the author does not state where they retrieved the map from. I'll assume that they got it from elsewhere on Commons, though I can't really be bothered to sift through hundreds of images of maps to verify whether it's there or not. I'll assume good faith in its publication here.
 * File:University of Michigan 1997 AP Trophy.jpg does not have a correct licence, as it was not published before 1928, as the image's description states, nor was it published without a valid licence (that only applies for works published before 1989, see Commons:Hirtle chart); the source link states that it was published in ca. 1998. It also states the licence the image is published under: CC BY 4.0. This should be reflected in the image description, per 6a of the GA criteria "media are tagged with their copyright statuses".
 * I'm not sure File:BCS Championship Media Day, Jan. 5, 2013.jpg has a valid non-free use rationale; the picture is simply used to illustrate, not to provide commentary. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" (emphasis mine). Looking at the image in the context of the article, it doesn't seem entirely necessary, so I'd suggest removing it, as it is simply illustrating a trophy.
 * File:Tennessee Stadium, 2010.jpg has a valid licence, and the flickr source seems to be the original author.
 * I'd appreciate alt text, but that is not part of the GA criteria. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking to copyright violations
Some references in the article are links to YouTube bootlegs of copyrighted works. Please remove them immediately (per WP:LINKVIO) and find sources to replace them. GA nominations can be failed without further review for having copyright violations (WP:GAFAIL), but here they are not of significant issue as long as you remove the links to the infringing material. The text itself does not seem to contain any copyright violations. I'll continue reviewing the article once the offending references are removed. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I should probably ping you here: @User:PK-WIKI. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the YouTubes links from the URL parameters of the citations. The published television productions themselves are still cited as WP:PRIMARY sources for the "National Championship Game" billing. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll look through the article more in a bit (possibly today if time permits). ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Article scope
The article contains a lot of info that may be better fit for their own list articles, though where exactly what information would be is a task beyond my pay grade (and also my understanding; I'm not much of a sportswoman myself). I see this has been brought up before in a prior review for this article (Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/GA2), and I find myself agreeing with the author's comment. I'll copy what they wrote here (courtesy of User:Wugapodes):


 * The compelling reasons are WP:USEPROSE and WP:NOTSTATS. From WP:USEPROSE: "Wikipedia differentiates between articles that consist primarily of lists (and are termed "lists" or "stand alone lists") and articles that consist primarily of prose (and are termed "articles"). Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose" and from WP:NOTSTATS: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. [Where exhaustive statistics are not necessary] omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."

This article could be better of it the information was summarized in a few paragraphs of text, as per WP:SUMMARIZE. Maybe save the detailed info for a list elsewhere. Although the article has undergone a lot of revisions over the years, it has remained very similar structurally, which means it is pretty far away from reaching criterion 3b of the WP:GA criteria: "stay[ing] focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" (emphasis mine).

Ignoring any such criteria and thinking strictly of the user experience reading this article, I still think it would do a poor job explaining the topic to the average reader, and it would be better off without the lists. It seems unlikely that they will look at the content present in the tables unless they were specifically looking for the information itself (in which case, it would be better off in its own article(s)). For anyone wanting to find out about the topic, the tables would just get in the way (though the new Wikipedia layout certainly helps a bit with that).

I'm tempted to quick fail the article foregoing any massive structural changes, as it is very far away from reaching criterion 3b. I'll probably look at some of the prose and references just to give feedback on them, as it looks like you've made a fair amount of edits to the article already and will probably continue editing it in the future. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to comment with your own thoughts here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

History section
Below are some comments for the history section based on some reading. I haven't done an exhaustive examination of the entire section, but the early history seems a bit dodgy. I'm unfamiliar with this topic area, so maybe there aren't many reliable sources about the early history of traditions like this, but I'd still like more secondary sources. To me, a lot of the information present reads like original research. It may be difficult to find sources about the period that discuss things like this directly, but I think the article would greatly benefit from their addition. I won't comment on the rest of the section, as it seems fine at a cursory glance. I have verified some of the information, and they seem to check out. The sources beyond this seem reliable (though the press release and the reference to an image are best replaced with other sources), so I'll let that rest for now.
 * The concept of a national championship in college football dates to the early years of the sport in the late 19th century - The reference does not verify this. You'd need to find a source that states this information outright. Just finding a single source dating to the late 19th century isn't enough to make a claim like this that can withstand scrutiny.
 * Who is Charles Patterson, and how is he relevant?
 * and New York newspaper The Sun - This is referenced to a primary source. I'd suggest finding a secondary source for this info.
 * Beyond rankings in newspaper columns, awards and trophies began to be presented to teams - The information in the rest of the paragraph would certainly suggest this is the case, but I'd still recommend finding a secondary source that verifies this. How would you know that there weren't awards and trophies being given earlier than the dates given here (or even before or at the same time as the newspaper columns)? It is unverifiable, as there is not a citation that makes this specific claim present in the article.
 * for the national championship in 1919 - I cannot verify this with the source. The closest I could find is "This Association for the past six years has sought to designate those champions whose notable achievements entitle them to distinction and honor and this is the first year that Bonniwell trophy, significant of a national championship, has ever been awarded". I'm not sure if this verifies this. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
 * The BCS victors were awarded The Coaches' Trophy "crystal football" on the field immediately following the game. - This does not have a citation to verify the information

Though the comments here may not be exhaustive, I hope they can give you a better framework for working with the rest of the article; there may be other areas with similar issues that other editors/reviewers would pick up on in the future. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Assessment
I haven't reviewed for all of the GA criteria, but I think my comments thus far will provide a better framework going forward. I'll provide a checklist for a better overview.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This article needs some restructuring to work and extra verification with secondary sources.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I have not read the entirety of the article, so this criterion has not been checked
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Same as above.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * All of the references seem to be formatted properly
 * 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):
 * Some of the information does not have citations
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Some of the material in the history section seem like original research, as the sources do not verify overall trends, but rather single instances of something happening.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * There is no copyright violation in the prose
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The article is broad enough
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * This is the main issue with the article. I'd suggest removing the big tables (especially the one in the "Yearly national championship selections from major selectors" subsection". The information present here is better off in a list article. I suggest summarizing some of the information present in the tables, or leaving them out entirely.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * I have not checked for this criterion
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * The history suggests that there are two to three authors contributing to the article, and it may change rapidly depending on the editor in question, so I won't comment on the activity level as of this review.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Some of the media do not have appropriate licences, and at least one non-free image does not seem to have a valid non-free use rationale as it has a purely illustrative purpose in the article.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All the media are relevant and have suitable captions. I'd suggest adding alt text, but this is not a GA criterion.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article does not meet several of the GA criteria, with at least one of them not being easily changeable within the frame of a single review.

Overall, the article has some issues, with some of them being easier to fix than others. The main issue is the scope being too large, including detailed information that may be better suitable in a list article. Seeing as it is very far away from reaching 3b, I'll unfortunately have to quick-fail this nomination, as it is too big a problem to fix here. If you feel like you've improved upon the article sufficiently in the future (or feel like my assessment is incorrect), you may nominate the article again in the future. Good work so far, and good luck in the future. If you have any questions about the review, you can send me a message on my talk page, as the tool used for reviewing articles archives the stuff written here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)