Talk:1896 Michigan Wolverines football team/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Grondemar 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Working I will complete and post this review within the next few days. –Grondemar 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This was a surprisingly-challenging article to review, since many of the conventions used in modern college football season GAs don't apply or there is not enough information available. Below are my comments:

• I moved the Preseason developments section above the Schedule section to better match other college football GAs such as 2008 Maryland Terrapins football team and 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team.

• I've always thought the schedule should stand alone and go before the prose sections, but I'm fine with it either way. Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice if quarter-by-quarter line scores, attendances, and other information was added for each game, but I understand if that kind of information is not available.

• Not only aren't they available, but there weren't even quarters at that time, and the halves were of irregular duration. Sometimes, games were played in irregular "halves" of 15 and 20 minutes or the like. Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• It might be better, and more standard, to name the individual game subsections after the opponents, perhaps with either a "vs" or "at", rather than the full score.

• I kind of like having the extra information in the headers but can remove if necessary. Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I lowered the header level of Indoor football, so it would appear under the Chicago game rather than in its own independent section, since it is really a subpart of the Chicago game.

• Agree with the change. Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Did Chicago really play 18 games in the 1896 season? Is that season summary box right?

• Yes indeed. They actually played four games between October 3 and October 10. See [1]. Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing this nomination on hold to allow the above issues to be addressed. I do not anticipate that addressing them will be challenging.

Thank you. –Grondemar 20:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Don't worry about changing anything else; I've decided it's good as-is. I will now pass this good article nomination. Congratulations! –Grondemar 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)