Talk:Snow Globe Game

Snow Globe Game 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: January 27, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Green Bay Packers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Bay Packers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Green Bay Packers 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.Green Bay PackersWikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay PackersTemplate:WikiProject Green Bay PackersGreen Bay Packers
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Football League Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL 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.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Snow Globe Game appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Green Bay Packers won a snowy NFL playoff game by scoring six straight touchdowns after they had been losing 14–0?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Snow Globe Game.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in a snowy NFL playoff game, the Green Bay Packers fell behind 14–0 after two early fumbles, before scoring six straight touchdowns to win 42–20 and advance to the NFC Championship Game?

Source: Here and here

Reviewed: Ian Fyfe (Daily Mirror journalist)

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 52 past nominations.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Not a full review, more of a comment, but per the old supplementary guidelines "Don't assume everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about." and perhaps more relevantly WP:DYKINT, a rephrasing or different angle may be in order. Most of the world might not understand the hook as currently written as it relies somewhat on specialist American football terminology. This is not to say the hook angle is itself unusable, just that it may need to be reworded for the benefit of international readers and/or non-sports fans. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I will await a full review. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonzo fan2007: The article was new enough at the time of the nomination (moved to mainspace) and meets length requirements. I cannot use Earwig at the moment so the copyvio check will be to follow. A QPQ has been done. Most of the article is properly sourced. However, as mentioned above, the hook as currently written is rather specialist and thus may not be easily understood or appreciated by non-specialist readers. It's rather long, very detailed, and complicated, in addition to it confusing non-American readers. Due to these concerns, ALT0 has been struck. A simplified version of its hook fact, or perhaps a different angle, will be needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would appreciate another reviewer taking this nom. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that, and per your message I won't be participating in your nominations moving forward. However, I still think that the hook hard to read, and the interesting aspect is lost among all the details. Maybe if it is simplified to something like:

ALT1 ... that in a snowy NFL playoff game, the Green Bay Packers went from losing 14-0 to winning 42-20? (thanks to Epicgenius for suggesting the wording).

Of course, another editor can take a look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For future reviewers, I'm open to rewording, but I don't agree that "fumble" or "touchdown" are specialist terminology, similar to how "tackle" and "goal" are fairly well understood words in the English language, regardless of ones understanding of football/soccer. American football is an international sport with over 400 million followers across the world. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting another hook idea that keeps the use of touchdowns (which I agree is legible in English-speaking contexts) and makes it a bit easier for non-NFL fans: ALT2 ... that the Green Bay Packers won a snowy NFL playoff game by scoring six straight touchdowns after they had been losing 14–0? Sounder Bruce 05:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce, I am good with ALT2. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce were you completing a full review or just proposing another alt? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Will fully review now that I can spare some time; I had thought that proposing a new hook would make me ineligible to review, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - Needs a direct citation, even if temporarily in the lead.
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Just need a little citation to pass this. Sounder Bruce 01:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SounderBruce, the article now says The Packers set a team playoff record with six consecutive touchdown drives, all of which occurred aftert the Packers were down 14–0; the previous record was four straight in 1983. and is cited to Ref 17. Does this satisfy your request? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to go then. Sounder Bruce 18:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:56, 27 January 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:Snow Globe Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 22:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 15:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead

Split the one paragraph into multiple

Done « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"Chicago Bears" is linked twice

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Game Summary

Looks good

Aftermath

Second paragraph seems out of scope

Its a short paragraph touching on the aftermath of the game going into the next season. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some citations list the sources as website.com while some just list website.

Sources are inconsitantly linked

Date style is consistent

Ref 27 list Sports illustrated as the source for consistency

I think I mentioned this on a previous review, but I link newspaper sources but not web sources, and I use base urls when using {{Cite web}}. For SI.com, if I was citing a print version, I would spell it out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Earwig doenst find anything

All images from commons and have alt text

Spot checks didn't turn anything up

Overall

That's what I got ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OlifanofmrTennant, all addressed or responded to. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 27 January 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.