Jump to content

Talk:1946 Cleveland Browns season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1946 Cleveland Browns season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2012Good article nomineeListed
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1946 Cleveland Browns season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 03:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look in the coming days, but will start tomorrow, as I am too tired right now.[reply]

Thanks -- I'm here to answer any queries, as always. --Batard0 (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

I'll just post some general thoughts as I go through.

Lead

[edit]

Perhaps we could use a word other than "magnate"...I know what it means, but some might not. Entrepreneur, tycoon, I don't know.

The attendance figure seems a little out of place; though that could just be me.

Other pre-game summary sections

[edit]

I think there may be a little too much on the founding of the AAFC rather than just the Cleveland Browns founding.

What positions did the two reserves play?

The rest

[edit]

Is there a reason that in the season table, some of the teams are linked and some aren't? Do the un-linked ones not have Wikipedia pages?

  • All the teams have wikipedia pages. I linked them all. I think the reason some weren't linked was that they had appeared earlier in the table, but I think it does look slightly awkward to have some as links and some not. --Batard0 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of the week four summary starting with the ticket prices, I feel like that should be at the end of the summary or in a separate section.

References

[edit]

I know I've said this before, and I know it's hard, but honestly, some non-Piascik references would be nice. I understand they provide comprehensive coverage, but it just seems the more the merrier in terms of sources.

  • I will try to find some more -- there are a limited number of sources I know about that cover the season in depth, but I'll see what I can do in the next day or so on this point. --Batard0 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

[edit]

Well, as usual, you've invested the time and effort into getting this up to almost GA status, and I'm inclined to accept pending the slight modifications suggested above. Keep up the good work!

I've listed

[edit]

Congrats on another GA. Go Phightins! 20:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]