# Talk:1915 Vanderbilt Commodores football team

This review is transcluded from Talk:1915 Vanderbilt Commodores football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.


### Checking against the GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
"The outlook for the upcoming 1915 Vanderbilt football season was not good" - tad informal, try unsatisfactory  Done
"To add to this, only 10 experienced players from the previous year were returning to the team" - Additionally  Done
"In the third quarter, Johnny Floyd ripped off 47 yards and Hubert Wiggs took it over." - this is a duplink  Done
"The 1915 Vanderbilt football team scored a grand total of 514 points in 510 minutes of actual playing time, thus ranking them as a legitimate "point-a-minute" team. Vanderbilt averaged 51.4 points a game. Vanderbilt led the nation in scoring, then one of few stats kept." - this needs a citation  Done
All harvrefs leading to the Vanderbilt Football: Tales of Commodore Gridiron History book are broken and need to be fixed  Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

The article is well researched and mostly well written, however I found a few issues. Once they're dealt with, this should be good to go.  JAGUAR  17:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see that all of the issues have been dealt with so this should be good to go.  JAGUAR  16:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)