Talk:2023–24 College Football Playoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Merger discussion

NOT MERGED
This discussion has not been edited in over a month and I see no consensus to merge. Launchballer 09:53, 28 March 2024 (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.

Yes, this may be presumed

WP:GNG: the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If this article is just going to merely copy what is on 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games § College Football Playoff bowl games (and it currently does not include everything from there, including the content regarding the CFP committee's controversial decision to pick Alabama instead of Florida State), it should be merged back and resemble the previous bowl season articles without such a fork article, and leave this as a {{R to section}} and {{R printworthy}} redirect. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge — no reason for this to be a stand-alone article. Each of the other articles like this — there are currently two; see the "Playoff" column in College Football Playoff National Championship#Game results — should also be merged out. Nor is "the playoffs are expanded to 12 teams next season" a reason to keep this. Dmoore5556 (talk)
Keep — I agree that the article needs to be expanded, but (as I posted to the Wikiproject) the annual College Football Playoff tournament is simply a different article subject from the wider and somewhat overlapping bowl games article. Just as the bowl games article is a different article from the season article, which also has overlapping sections for the bowl games and the CFP.
Ten years later, when I'm looking for the information on
2014–15 College Football Playoff, that's what I'm typing into the search engine and specifically what I want to read about. 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games has way too much other information. Wikipedia's article about the year's CFP shouldn't also list the participants in the 2014 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl
.
"Michigan and Washington will face off in the College Football Playoff national championship game Monday night, but in an era in which there are more than 40 bowl games a season, with only two of them — the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl, serving as national championship semifinals — carrying any sort of significance, the Pop-Tarts Bowl won the internet." — The New York Times
This is going to be even more obvious next year during the 12-team playoff, which includes unnamed mid-December on-campus playoff games. Are those even "bowl games"?
The CFP evolved out of the bowl games and BCS, so in the 2014 era it was a reasonable decision to merge the articles and just continue our bowl game articles. But in the years since, the CFP has become the singular focus of post-season media interest, at the expense of the wider bowl games, and is deserving of a dedicated article. Each of the annual CFP tournaments absolutely has significant coverage outside of their existence as "bowl games" so I'm not sure how that argument plays into this.
PK-WIKI (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. Looking for the 2014–15 playoff result... scroll down half a screen in
WP:CRYSTAL) can be addressed when we get there. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
To offer constructive criticism: a
WP:TOOSOON-created articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I've already added an table listing the members of the 2023–24 College Football Playoff Selection Committee to this article, something that does not exist at 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games. That's just one example of something that can/should exist for the annual CFP article, but is likely out of scope for the wider bowl games article. The giant table at College_Football_Playoff#Past_members is the result of not having an annual article to put those names in for the last 10 years.
Same for details of the Florida State snub, something that other users have already deleted from the 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship article. Doesn't exactly fit at the bowl games article either, and currently has a a very small section. There was enough notable coverage of the FSU snub and choice of Alabama to warrant a section and major discussion, and the natural home for that is in the article about the playoff tournament from which they were excluded.
There is no
WP:DEADLINE here. I've been adding content and encourage other editors to as well. I hope that by creating such an article, that next year we can keep most of the playoff content in the 2024–25 College Football Playoff article and just summarized / linked to / listed in the 2024–25 NCAA football bowl games article. I agree that 1970 Major League Baseball postseason
is a good model article.
PK-WIKI (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am going to try to work on expanding this article over the coming days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - pinging commenters @PK-WIKI, Dmoore5556, and Zzyzx11: I know it has been over a month since you commented on this discussion so I wanted to bring your attention back to this. I have done a rewrite and significant expansion (~1 kB to ~15 kB) on the article and I firmly believe that it contains enough to warrant being separate from the playoff section on the broader bowl games article. I am also more than happy to add content to address any shortcomings you note, anything I missed, or anything you feel needs fixing up. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been quite a bit of content added to 2023–24 College Football Playoff, which I looked through just now. PCN02WPS has put forth a significant amount of editing effort, including extensive citations. That said, the nature of this article is (still) a re-presenting of existing content primarily from (or content that should be located in) 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games and the individual game articles (2024 Rose Bowl, 2024 Sugar Bowl, and 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship). There may be some value in "centralizing" such content, but not when it creates confusion (e.g. why I am getting a lengthy prose recounting of the Rose Bowl here rather than in 2024 Rose Bowl?) I have a very strong dislike for repeated / overlapped content, as it makes editing more difficult and makes it difficult for readers to know they're in the "right" place. The additional length of this article doesn't make it better, in my view. Bottom line for me is that this type of article will make sense for the upcoming expanded playoffs, but not for the four-team playoffs that have already happened and are covered in existing articles. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556 Is there a change (whether to content, formatting, etc) that would make this article warranted in your eyes? I agree that it will work well for the 12-team playoffs but in my mind this article works similarly to 2023 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament, 2023–24 NFL playoffs, etc., though admittedly with fewer games and individual articles for each game. An especially apt comparison in my mind is 1970 Major League Baseball postseason above, which summarizes the ALCS, NLCS, and World Series (all with their own articles) and gives some background as to how the teams got in. I think a summary article like that is helpful for the playoff specifically, and I feel that if we maintain the playoff-specific articles for the 12-team format, then they will just pop back up for the 4-team format as I don't love a system where we would only have separate articles for playoffs starting eleven years in just due to an increase in the number of teams. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:10, 22 February 2024 (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.

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 13:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 23:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023–24 College Football Playoff; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything looks good, but there is a merge discussion still active. It would probably be best to wait until that is closed before this is approved. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PCN02WPS: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720 and BeanieFan11: I pinged the creator of the merge discussion and another user who voted to merge when I completed the rewrite earlier this month. My pings aren't getting responses so I'm not quite sure how to proceed at this time with the discussion. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720, BeanieFan11, and PCN02WPS: Since the nomination has been stuck for a while, I'm not seeing a consensus for a merge at this time and the discussion appears to have petered out (no new discussion in over a month). Perhaps it's time to close that request and move forward with the nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as no consensus. Full review needed.--Launchballer 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was 5x expanded. I find ALT1 the most interesting. It is confirmed and cited in the article. The article is neutral, and uses the correct inline citations. Earwig does not reveal plagiarism and the qpq is done. Bruxton (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed.  750h+ | Talk  14:41, 8 April 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:2023–24 College Football Playoff/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 07:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PCN02WPS, I'll review this for GA status.  750h+ | Talk  04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Lead

  • By virtue of their victories, Michigan and Washington faced each other in the national championship game, held on January 8 in Houston. Change "By virtue of" to "Because of" or "As a result of" (some people might not instantly understand what that means.  750h+ | Talk  04:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...College Football Playoff poll playing in two semifinals with the winners of each... add a comma after "semifinals".  750h+ | Talk  04:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant media criticism arose from the exclusion of Florida State, the first undefeated Power Five conference champion to be left out of the CFP. For conciseness, maybe rephrase this to "Significant media criticism arose from Florida State's exclusion, the first undefeated Power Five conference champion left out of the CFP."  750h+ | Talk  04:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am hesitant to do this since "the first undefeated Power Five..." refers to Florida State instead of their exclusion, so that part of the sentence would have to be reworked as well. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bracket

  • Should there be references here?  750h+ | Talk  04:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template doesn't include references; my thought process was that (I think) everything in the bracket is covered with references in the prose. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selection and teams

  • ...were seen as a liability and potentially a reason to exclude them, though many analysts urged for their inclusion on the basis of their undefeated record... change "on the basis of" to "based on" for conciseness  750h+ | Talk  04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michigan and Washington were generally seen as guaranteed bids, while the teams in the final two spots were more debated between Florida State, Texas, and Alabama in particular. this sentence is excessively wordy. Maybe rephrase to "Michigan and Washington were considered guaranteed bids, while the final two spots were debated between Florida State, Texas, and Alabama."  750h+ | Talk  04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table, titled "2023 College Football Playoff rankings top six progression", is not sourced. Is it supposed to be?  750h+ | Talk  04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff games

Semifinals
  • The Wolverines led by three points at halftime and maintained this lead through to the fourth quarter, when Alabama scored a touchdown. remove the comma.  750h+ | Talk  04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alabama on a Jase McClellan rush and Michigan on a J. J. McCarthy pass. add a comma after "rush".  750h+ | Talk  04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sugar Bowl
  • ...the sixth all-time meeting between the two... change "the two" to "them" for conciseness.  750h+ | Talk  04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington opened the scoring on their first drive through Dillon Johnson and Texas tied the game on their next drive. add a comma after "Johnson".  750h+ | Talk  04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both teams scored twice more before halftime, making the score 21–21. is "more" necessary.  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's helpful because it makes sure the reader knows that I'm not including the touchdowns each team scored that I've already mentioned. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their next three plays resulted in no yardage gained and they failed to score on 4th & Goal... add a comma after "gained"  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Championship

Aftermath

Source review

  • Florida State, who lost their starting quarterback Jordan Travis in their next-to-last regular season game against North Alabama, is supported by reference 12, confirmed.
  • The Longhorns' sole loss had come by four points to No. 12 Oklahoma. is supported by reference 23, confirmed.
  • ACC commissioner Jim Phillips also criticized the committee, calling the decision "unfathomable". is supported by reference 27, confirmed.
  • All is supported by reliable sources, so that is a sourcing pass.  750h+ | Talk  04:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Could we supply any images to the article? Even if they are the closest bit related that would illustrate the article well.  750h+ | Talk  04:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Overall this is a fine article, but the extremely minor concerns need to be addressed above. After that, I'd be happy to pass the artie for

WP:GA
.

OK. So pictures are not a requirement for GAs, so I will pass this article even before you add them. Congrats!  750h+ | Talk  14:40, 8 April 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023–24_College_Football_Playoff&oldid=1217899362"