Wikipedia:Peer review/Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate
This article is reasonably-well developed, but it has an odd style. What is needed to get it to GA (or better) status? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:A mcmurray
At a glance:
- References:
-
- article should probably have inline citations, while not required for GA it is recommended, highly. See: Good article criteria.
Done
- article should probably have inline citations, while not required for GA it is recommended, highly. See: Good article criteria.
- External links:
-
- Should be titled as such, section goes last per WP:MOS. Done
- Should be titled as such, section goes last per WP:MOS.
- Table/Chart:
-
- The table in the 'Football' section is very confusing. Done (removed it)
- Additionally I don't think the graph in the 'Basketball' section adds much at all to the article. Done (removed it)
- Same with the comparisons between coaches and stadiums later, those could easily be converted to prose.
- The table in the 'Football' section is very confusing.
- Word choice: Be careful using words like however, they can imply POV. Done
- Image: POV here. The one photo (isn't that great because it is hard to decipher) is the only one present and it leans the article in favor of Tech. Done (additional images added)
- Trivia: The whole trivia section should be converted to prose and inserted in the appropriate section(s). See WP:TRIV. Done
- General comments:
-
- In general rivalry doesn't imply that comparison be made between every aspect of the schools and their athletic program.
Not done
- With the book sources I think ISBN numbers are preferred included. See Wikipedia:ISBN. Done
- In general rivalry doesn't imply that comparison be made between every aspect of the schools and their athletic program.
I will likely complete a more thorough review soon. It will include much more in depth comments but hopefully that gives you a starting point. Good luck.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Looking much better. I will take a look in the next couple days, try to give you some tips on other stuff. I will look more at the prose itself, which is an essential part of GA. See WP:WIAGA, just FYI. IvoShandor 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- How many times can I post the same link, I wonder? ; ) IvoShandor 18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the progress of the article, too. You've been quite helpful so far :D ... I've even added an appropriate picture I found in the GT archives. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looking much better. I will take a look in the next couple days, try to give you some tips on other stuff. I will look more at the prose itself, which is an essential part of GA. See WP:WIAGA, just FYI. IvoShandor 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
