Wikipedia:Peer review/Washington & Jefferson Presidents football/archive1

Washington & Jefferson Presidents football
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it looks pretty good to me, and I would like to know how it could be made into a GA, or even possibly an FA.

Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is readable and informative, but if it is to reach GA standard, a lot more work is needed. I have itemised specific points below. On a more general point, I have not copyedited the prose; it is generally grammatical, but at times reads more like a football magazine article than an encyclopedia entry. I have highlighted a particular instance of this, below, but the whole text needs to be looked at again with a view to improving its encyclopedic tone. Specific points:-
 * There is a link to a disambiguation page - Bethany College - done
 * The article needs a proper lead section, which summarises in broad terms the general content of the article. A simple definition is not adequate. Please see WP:LEAD for further information.
 * The History section needs further development - it should not begin with the first match. For example, how and why was the team formed? Who were the guiding spirits behind its beginnings? Where was the team based, etc?
 * I think I expanded it a good amount.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Folwell years:
 * "years" in heading should be lower case, and "The" should be omitted (WP:MOS)
 * What was Bob Folwell recruited to do? Player? Coach?--clarified
 * Who is Robert "Mother" Murphy?--clarified
 * 100–0 score? Is this right? It seems an extraordinary score to pass over without comment.
 * Yes, that's correct. I've seen scores of 200+ from the early years of college football.--GrapedApe
 * "Three players were named to the All-American." For the benefit of us who have no knowledge of American Football, what does this mean?
 * W&J would have won the same..." Presumably "game"?--'done
 * The coded term "mythical national championship" should not be used without explanation. It forces your readers to use a link and read another article to find out what the expression means.
 * "7th" should be "seventh", per WP:MOS--done
 * The Neale, Heisman, and Kerr Years
 * "The" should be deleted from section title
 * Neale should be introduced more formally, to maintain encyclopedic tone.
 * "a day of canceled classes and bonfire with inspirational speeches" - "bonfire" should be plural or "a bonfire" --done
 * It is not necessary to spell out Robert "Mother" Murphy in full at each mention.
 * Jargon expressions in second paragraph, e.g. "potent offense", "first downs", "rushing". This sort of thing is always likely to occur in a specialist sports article. Bear in mind that this is not a football magazine article; it is a general encyclopedia with a less informed readership, and the prose needs to be tailored accordingly.
 * Depression and decline
 * "decline" in heading should be lower case (WP:MOS)
 * "...as a result of decreased enrollment and funding from the Depression" - "during the Depression" would read better.--done
 * What was Simon Strousse Baker president of?--clarified
 * "Things began to look up when Donora-native "Deacon" Dan Towler chose W&J over offers from larger football programs." It would help to have a date for this information.
 * I couldn't find a date of matriculation, so I added the general time frame.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is a PAC championship?--clarified
 * Resurgence
 * What is "NCAA"?
 * "the DIII playoffs": "DIII" looks awkward, would be better written as "the Division III playoffs"--clarified
 * "both securing at least a share" - why "at least"?--clarified
 * Alumni: the section should be rewritten in more flowing prose. It presently has seven paragraphs, five of which are single-sentence one-liners.--should be better
 * Tradition and lore: The first sentence is pure trivia and should be deleted. Other information could be briefly included in the body of the text, but it is not worth having a section dedicated to this.
 * Season-by-season records (tables)
 * Coach information is very repetitive. The table should be simplified to avoid at least three recordings of each coach's name.
 * As far as I can tell, that's
 * The heading "Overall" is uninformative. You need someting like "Win/loss ratio"
 * The figures in this column would look a lot neater if they were centered. Same applies to the "Standings" column.
 * Some on-line references (1, 12, 25) lack access dates.

As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews at present, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any questions arising from this review. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)