Talk:2010 NFC Championship Game

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 History6042 talk 23:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite being rivals since the 1920s, the 2010 NFC Championship Game was only the second time the Chicago Bears and Green Bay Packers had ever met in the playoffs?

• Source: ESPN.com

• • Reviewed: Abortion in Tunisia and Catastrophically evaporating planet

Moved to mainspace by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 65 past nominations.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC).

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2025 (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: Looks good. Nice work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Location

Regarding this edit: USPLACE, as the quoted text makes clear, is an article titling guideline. It does not dictate how places are referred to in running text. Conversely, as MOS:INTRO indicates, "Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible... Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." Without specifying the country, the reader does not know what nation "national" is referring to, or which "football" is the topic. The lead as currently written assumes context rather than providing it, as it should do. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You know this Nikkimaria, when there is a content dispute, the original version shall remain while the discussion occurs. We disagree, and I have clearly stated that the current use broadly across Wikipedia is not to add in country the way you have. This probably isn't the best place for the discussion, as not many people will see it here. Also, the infobox, which is part of the lead, already notes this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gonzo fan2007: I know that using a tag to identify an issue under discussion is common and appropriate, and helps bring more eyes; please restore it. I do not know that what you have asserted about common usage is correct, or desired; it appears to be quite common, on a quick survey of FA-level sports articles, to either identify the country and/or specify English vs American football, and I see no reason to believe that doing so here would not be appropriate per INTRO. INTRO also specifically refers to the text; the article should remain complete with its infobox ignored per MOS:IBP. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

As I stated, quite literally no game article in WP:NFL uses this formatting. Do we solve anything by making a change here? Maybe there is a better way to resolve the concern that is easy to implement across the board? As I stated, regardless of applicability, it is very uncommon in normal American usage to have "City, State, Country". Does saying it was an "American football game" resolve your concern? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria The 2010 National Football Conference (NFC) Championship Game was an American football game played between the Green Bay Packers and the Chicago Bears on January 23, 2011, at Soldier Field in Chicago, Illinois.. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly better than the current situation. But to answer your questions: Wikipedia has an international audience, and this article needs to be understandable also to those who are not necessarily familiar with American usage; making a change here helps to accomplish that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Just for your benefit, I know all that, as I have been here for a while and written quite a bit. That said, I also strongly believe the "oh man, what sport am I reading about, this doesn't make any sense" is seriously overblown. I don't see talk page comments, teahouse questions, or the like regarding the supposed issue. I think the addition of "American football" is a satisfactory compromise, one that maintains normal sounding English and sentence flow. I'm happy to make the change, remove the tag, and complete this discussion if you are ready for that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to your strong beliefs, but at the end of the day we should prioritize accessibility over what is normal for one country. That being said, what you're proposing is better than the current situation, so please do implement that. You'd already removed the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Note, I moved the tag, per its documentation, to the talk page. Removing it now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the tag situation: if it's a concern over a couple words or a sentence, I'm not sure why we would use {{lead}}. This isn't a situation where someone's arguing that the entire lead "may need to be rewritten"—I actually wouldn't be surprised if this qualified as the sort of "trivial or minor problem" that led to someone adding that bullet point to WP:TC. All that said, if a tag was needed, I'd have preferred one of the inline tags. Probably {{globalize inline}} or {{context inline}}.

On the content dispute: I took a quick gander through the lead sentences in all the Wikipedia articles about current NFL and MLB teams (I think). None of them specifies anything more than the US state. I imagine that's because "American" or "Canadian" comes earlier in the sentence, which suggests that "American football" ought to be enough here.

More specific to this article, Chicago is globally well-known, particularly in the English language. I do wonder if the link to it is unnecessary per MOS:OVERLINK.

(I caught this discussion via Nikkimaria's talk page.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No opinion on the linking. It's just something I have done for the last 20 years. I also went and made sure all the games I have written about have "U.S." in the infobox. I'll try to weave in American football game in the lead to assist in the concerns noted here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 NFC Championship Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

taking. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Refs:

• mix of caps in citation styles, compare ref 18 to refs 12 & 39 WP:CITESTYLE
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• some refs need ndashes instead of hyphens, ie refs 38 and in 37 the ndashes would look better than the hyphens. go through all refs for this.
  • Not sure about this. I typically just copy the capitalization of the title in the source. Are you saying that the capitalization should be changed to either have every word capitalized or to be sentence case? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Gonzo fan2007: "Preserving the capitalization style of each individual source[note 6] is not considered a consistent style." WP:CITESTYLE Therapyisgood (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I fixed this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Files:

• files look ok.

Lead:

• link Wild Card in lead
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• The Bears had a first-round bye can you link bye anywhere?
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Although the Packers took an early 14–0 lead, the game became a defensive struggle, with each team combining for 17 punts and five interceptions. were the punts & picks before or after the Packers took a 14–0 lead?
  • This is explained in the body of the article. This sentence is just meant to summarize what is a few paragraphs of text. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• touchdown link
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• punt link
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• quarterback link
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• link interception
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

to "Background" Therapyisgood (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Packers offense and defense, led by quarterback Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews III, respectively, ranked in the top 10 in yards and points. "led by" is a bit vague; can you clarify if they were captains or not? Also is the defense in the top 10 most or least in yards allowed and points?
  • This is probably too much original research. I am just deleting it. American football stats aren't stated like soccer stats ("goals for" and "goals against"). If a defense is ranked top, its implied this means that they have given up the least of something. Conversely, if an offense is ranked in the top, it means that have accumulated the most of something. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Bears were led by their defense, which was ranked in the top five in points allowed, as well as the being the second best team against the run. most or least? Also can you mention who the captains were on the Bears like you do for the Packers?
  • American football stats aren't stated like soccer stats ("goals for" and "goals against"). If a defense is ranked top, its implied this means that they have given up the least of something. Conversely, if an offense is ranked in the top, it means that have accumulated the most of something. I just deleted the reference to the Packers players as too much OR, so won't do it here either. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

to Game summary Therapyisgood (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Packers began the game with possession of the ball. can you say who won the coin flip?
  • In all the sources I saw, I didn't see this reported. For me, this is a generally unimportant detail. The only time it became important was if overtime was forced, because there was some inherent benefit to winning the coin flip and getting the ball first. See Hail Larry as an example of this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @Gonzo fan2007: someone wrote a whole article on it Therapyisgood (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
      • Actually looking at the GA criteria I'm happy this can be excluded under 3(a) but would insist it be included should this go to FA. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
        • I added it. Thanks for identifying the source! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
• However, just one play later, Jay Cutler threw a deep pass towards Johnny Knox that was intercepted by Sam Shields. cut "However"
  • Cut. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Cutler was injured on the play. what injury?
  • This is discussed later in the article. I added "knee" later to clarify. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

to Second half Therapyisgood (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• that was reverse via instant replay. reversed
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• However, Hanie led no need for "however"
  • Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• With a little over four-and-a-half minutes left in the game, the Bears kicked the ball of to the Packers.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• The Bears drove 44 yards to the Packers 29-yard line; on fourth down can you clarify how many yards to go the Bears had on 4th down?
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Rodgers and the Packers' offense came onto the field and knelt the ball can this be changed to "knelt down" and link to Quarterback kneel?
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

to Box score Therapyisgood (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Game time: 3:00 p.m. EST/2:00 p.m. CST so the game time is listed as 3:05 PM on the reference you provided.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Game weather: 20 °F (−7 °C), partly cloudy partly cloudy not referenced anywhere
  • Matched text to source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
• TV announcers (Fox): Joe Buck (play-by-play), Troy Aikman (color commentator), Pam Oliver, and Chris Myers (sideline reporters) unreferenced, though citing the broadcast itself should be OK, did the full game ever come out on DVD?
  • Added a source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

To Analysis Therapyisgood (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Post-game analysis centered on the competitive nature of the game, the teams' historic rivalry, and performances by individual players. not sure this sentence is needed.
  • I like it as an intro sentence for a fairly large section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• his 10 receptions were a franchise playoff record for a running back or for all receivers? Does this record still stand?
  • The source just says "franchise record" and does not provide a qualifier, which is how it is presented in the article. I almost never add in words like "current" to records, as they create sentences that are prone to going out-of-date. I think the sentence clarifies what the source provided. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• to make it difficult for Hester to get going what does "get going" mean?
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Cutler received much criticism for not continuing to play, even though he had been relatively ineffective, Bears' coaches were the ones that decided to pull him from the game, and his injury was confirmed after the game. break up into 2 sentences.
  • Broken up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• B. J. Raji, shown here in 2012 → B. J. Raji, pictured in 2012, ...
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

to Aftermath Therapyisgood (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• a bunch of sentences on the Packers in the "Aftermath" section but only one on the Bears? Whatever happened to Cutler after his injury, Hanie, Lovie after the loss, etc.
  • Really all you need are 2/3 sentences on Chicago and I'll happily pass (after spotchecks). Therapyisgood (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• have you looked for more Chicago sources that describe the game? from a cursery glance I was able to find: this, this, this, without even touching newspapers.com Therapyisgood (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Really all you need are 2/3 sentences on Chicago and I'll happily pass (after spotchecks). Therapyisgood (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    • I added a few sentences. Typically for game articles, I reserve the "Analysis" section for more even critical commentary on the game. The "Aftermath" section is generally reserved for what happened next to both teams. Hope this helps satisfy your concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Charles Woodson not sure who Woodson is, player or analyst? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Added "Packers defensive back" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

so that's about it. the only really major thing is the aftermath/legacy section, which skews hard towards the Packers. placing on hold. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Therapyisgood, thanks for your patience. Sorry, work has been crazy and trying to address things during quick breaks. I'll try to wrap this up today. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Therapyisgood, I think that is everything. Let me know if there is anything else. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Doing spotchecks now... Therapyisgood (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007:

• Ref 14: why cite a 2025 rulebook for a 2010 game?
  • The source doesn't explain the intricacies of deferring. A team can choose to receive, kickoff, or defer. If they choose to kickoff, then they receive the ball in the second half (and vice versa). If they choose to defer, the other team could (confusingly) choose to still kick-off at the beginning of the game. It's just an intricate rule and one that needs some explaining since the coin flip is being discussed. I can try to find the 2010 rulebook, but my initial google search was inconclusive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Ref 18: supports names but not their roles, suggest cutting roles.
  • Cut the roles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Ref 46: checks out.
• Ref 2: checks out.
• Ref 15: checks out for "On the first two plays of the drive, Rodgers completed passes of 22 and 26 yards to Greg Jennings."
• fix ref 14 and the parenthesis, and I'm happy.
  • What do you mean "and the parenthesis"? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
    • @Gonzo fan2007: meant what you cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Also you can just cite the FOX broadcast of the game for their roles.
  • I'm fine cutting the roles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Will pass after these are addressed. Excellent work! Therapyisgood (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Responses above Therapyisgood. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

passing. don't worry about the 2010 rulebook, I'll handle that. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)