Talk:Northwest Championship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Newtothisedit (talk · contribs) 04:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this up for review. I'll start leaving comments soon.--Newtothisedit (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Is it neutral
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments

 * "The Ducks, Beavers, Huskies, and Cougars first played each other in a round-robin format in the 1903 season." Since this is the first time the teams are mentioned I would say the full name of each team ex: Oregon Ducks, Oregon State Beavers, etc.


 * "Boise State beat Oregon in 2008 and 2009" Link to Boise State


 * "The next week they won at Autzen Stadium," Link to Autzen Stadium


 * I don't love how the visual in the inforbox looks with two block logo's and two script logo's. I'd make it so the logo styles are the same for all four (I know that OSU and Wazzu have block logo's).

Unfortunately I'm gonna have to fail this article. It is very well written but the nominator hasn't addressed the comments or contacted me at all about his status despite me leaving multiple talk page messages and it has been over a month since comments were left far longer than the 7 day reviewing period.--Newtothisedit (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Newtothisedit. This is my first GA nomination, sorry if I'm not doing this correctly. I thought you would see the changes I made in the page history.
 * I have made the changes listed in your comments.
 * The only thing I haven't done is address the logos... these are the same logos that are used at Apple Cup and Oregon–Oregon State football rivalry. I too would prefer logos to match their in-state schools, and I've been delaying responding here until I had a chance to find other options. But I haven't found anything yet. PK-WIKI (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I suppose the logos are fine as is, that was more a of a nitpick. If you want to renominate the article I can do a quick pass after the Thanksgiving holidays. Newtothisedit (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've re-nominated the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)