Talk:Dartmouth Big Green football under William Wurtenburg

Dartmouth Big Green football under William Wurtenburg 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.
Review: February 16, 2015. (Reviewed version).

College football Mid‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dartmouth Big Green football under William Wurtenburg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

Make sure you're using ndashes for records and the like, rather than a hyphen. (4–3 instead of 4-3)

I believe all occurrences have been fixed

You note the tenth-best record in 1896 a couple times, but without context I'm not sure how useful it is; how many teams were actively playing college football at that time? You also change from "the tenth-best record among major eastern teams" in the lead to " the tenth best record in the country for major teams." in 1896. keep it consistent (and add a hyphen in the second part).

Added a mention of the number of major teams

"The season ended on a sour note with four straight losses on the road, two of them coming against western teams" I'd change western to midwestern, since noting Chicago and Cincinnati as "western" doesn't sound right, plus the link is to the Midwest anyway.

Changed to "Midwest"

I'll put the article on hold and will pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman 18:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. Thanks for the review, Wizardman. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 22:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, article now passes. Wizardman 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]