Talk:2017–18 College Football Playoff

2017–18 College Football Playoff has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 25, 2025. (Reviewed version).

College football High‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Passed.
Well done PCN02WPS. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2017–18 College Football Playoff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 18:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check

Earwig shows a 3.8% which is good. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

The three-game playoff recorded an increase of 21% over the previous edition, an increase of what?
- Ha, oops. Fixed with "...a viewership increase of 21%..." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sources are reliable, formatted great and no OR; I did a check of all sources while I reviewed prose. Passing article. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.