| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- Consider linking "conference" to List of NCAA conferences.
- Add links to Stanford and Arizona on their first mention in the body: in the 'Participants' section.
- "This was the 86th meeting.." Because the last game mentioned before this was their 62–48 meeting at Stanford, this is ambiguous. Clarify that "The championship game was the 86th meeting.."
- "Regardless of the game's result, the winner would have been.." I find the "would have been" odd here. Perhaps "would become"?
- "..with a record of 15–4.." Explain what this means, as it isn't necessarily common terminology outside of North America.
 Done - explained "15 wins and 4 losses" and put (15-4) in parentheses so it can be used throughout the rest of the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "..over three ranked teams." Also, what are "ranked teams"?
- What is the "Pac-12 Tournament"? (This seems to be linked on second use, during the Stanford section. Switching the link to the first use would alleviate my concern.)
- What is an "at-large bid"?
- "In the tournament.." What tournament? The Mercado Regional? If so, change to "In that tournament.."
- "..to reach their second Sweet Sixteen." What is a "Sweet Sixteen"?
- The Sweet Sixteen is the more common name for the regional semifinal round, I can clarify that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm guessing based on subsequent uses of "Elite Eight" and "Final Four" that these are gimmicky names given to each knockout round. I'd recommend a footnote to explain the terms.
- "Elite Eight" and "Final Four" are the more common names for the regional final (national quarterfinal) and national semifinal rounds, I can clarify those too. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "wire-to-wire" mean? Presumably it would be the same as "start to finish"?
- Not keen on the single sentence paragraph to end the section. I'd recommend either expanding it to give a little more detail on that game, or merge it in with the prior paragraph. (Applies to both Arizona and Stanford sections.)
- "..to their 14th Pac-12 tournament championship." Shouldn't "tournament" be capitalised here, per the previous use?
- "..they were awarded an automatic bid.." What does this mean?
- This is explained in that sentence - "By virtue of winning their conference tournament". If you win your conference tournament, you automatically get a bid into the NCAA tournament. If this is still unclear I can try to clarify but I'm not sure how I'd do that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the main issue here is the use of the word "bid", which I've never seen used in this context. It seems to being used as a synonym of invitation, I guess? Glossary of basketball terms includes "bid thief", but that assumes understanding of "bid" in the first place. Maybe it is a common North American sports term, but I'm not familiar with it at all, and I have to assume that would be the case for the common layperson reading this article. Harrias
- What are "field goals"?
- What are "free throws"?
- For this and above, I'm not going to explain them because they're basic basketball terms but I will link them. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't Shaina Pellington linked in the 'Game summary' section?
- "..cut the Cardinal lead to one Some moments.." Missing punctuation.
- "..that would put them up by ten before.." No need for "would".
- Link "dunk" to slam dunk.
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
No concerns.
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
- Be consistent between "ESPN.com" or "ESPN" as the website title.
- Remove "| NCAA.com" from the title for ref #3, ad consider changing the website title to "NCAA".
- Both above done; as far as I can tell, those below aren't covered by GA criteria so I will try to get to them later. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Add dates of publication for the University of Arizona Athletics refs (#9, 10, 12)
- Add dates of publication for the Stanford University Athletics refs (#18, 19, 20, 21, 26)
- Add a date of publication for ref #23.
- Add a date of publication for ref #25.
- Add a date of publication and author details for ref #27.
|
|
|
2b. 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).
|
No concerns.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
- The time given for the game is "5:00 pm CDT", but the time given in the source is "11:00 PM".
- Where do you see that? When I click on the "Box score" link, and scroll down to "Game Information", I see "6:00 PM, April 4, 2021" (I'm in Eastern, so 6:00 p.m. here is 5:00 p.m. Central)
- Okay, I'm in GMT, so that makes sense. But it isn't obvious from the source that it is providing the time in your local time zone. Nevertheless, this falls close to "sky is blue" territory, so I'm not going to push it. Harrias
- Where are the uniform designs sourced to?
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- Consider adding some of the details from the game template into the prose, such as where the game was played, when it was and what time it started. These all appear in the lead, so would be good to include in the body prose.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
No concerns.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
No concerns.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
No concerns.
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
Other than the uniforms, no media present; no issues.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
Other than the uniforms, no media present; no issues.
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
Generally a decent article, but it suffers from heavy jargon usage, and a fair few of the references need tidying up. I'll stick it on hold for the time being.
|
