Talk:1915 Vanderbilt Commodores football team/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "The outlook for the upcoming 1915 Vanderbilt football season was not good" - tad informal, try unsatisfactory  Done

   "To add to this, only 10 experienced players from the previous year were returning to the team" - Additionally  Done

   "In the third quarter, Johnny Floyd ripped off 47 yards and Hubert Wiggs took it over." - this is a duplink  Done

   "The 1915 Vanderbilt football team scored a grand total of 514 points in 510 minutes of actual playing time, thus ranking them as a legitimate "point-a-minute" team. Vanderbilt averaged 51.4 points a game. Vanderbilt led the nation in scoring, then one of few stats kept." - this needs a citation  Done

   All harvrefs leading to the Vanderbilt Football: Tales of Commodore Gridiron History book are broken and need to be fixed  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article is well researched and mostly well written, however I found a few issues. Once they're dealt with, this should be good to go. JAGUAR  17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see that all of the issues have been dealt with so this should be good to go. JAGUAR  16:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)