Talk:1935 SMU vs. TCU football game/GA1
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Kaiser matias in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 15:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I feel the two schools names should be spelled out in the lead, rather than using the abbreviations.
- Added full school names to lead.
- "Their game against the Bruins on November 11 was especially noteworthy, as it attracted a crowd of about 50,000 people at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to watch the Mustangs' spread offense lead them to a 21–0 victory over the local team." Is the 50,000 attendance high or low for this type of game? Best to note something to quantity that (it was the highest attendance for UCLA in so long, record for the season, etc).
- I could not find any information from the source material indicating the significance of either the attendance or the score, so I have edited the sentence.
- Any reason North Texas State Teachers Eagles does not link to North Texas Mean Green football?
- Added link to North Texas Mean Green football.
- The captions for the Rose and Sugar Bowl (in the "Afermath" section) should specify what stadium is what (ex. Rose Bowl (left; pictured 1926) and so on).
- Added directions to images.
Otherwise I don't see much else to note here. More images would of course be nice, but I do understand that can be limited. A really high-quality article here, and will be happy to pass once the above are addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I've put the article on hold, and while I know that notes seven days to complete things, I am not going to fail if you need more time, as I understand people can be busy. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Kaiser matias, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have completed some edits to the page to address some of the concerns you raised in your review. Thanks for starting this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good work, happy to pass now. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Kaiser matias, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have completed some edits to the page to address some of the concerns you raised in your review. Thanks for starting this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I've put the article on hold, and while I know that notes seven days to complete things, I am not going to fail if you need more time, as I understand people can be busy. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)