Template:Did you know nominations/2023–24 College Football Playoff

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)

2023–24 College Football Playoff

(

)

... that the 2023–24 College Football Playoff was the first to exclude an undefeated Power Five conference champion? Source: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/03/1216866882/florida-state-cfp-ncaa-playoff-alabama-seminoles
- ALT1: ... that Florida State's exclusion from the 2023–24 College Football Playoff prompted an antitrust investigation? Source: https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/florida-governor-ron-desantis-sets-aside-1-million-for-fsus-legal-battles-against-cfp
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick H. Bealefeld III
- Comment: ~~Still some to do but 5x expansion has been reached so I wanted to go ahead and get it nominated.~~

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.

I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

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)

@PCN02WPS: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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)

Closed as no consensus. Full review needed.--Laun chba ller 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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)