# Talk:Vaulx Carter

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vauix Carter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments

A brief article... Is this honestly all the information available about this guy?
I wish it wasn't, but this is all I've been able to dig up.
"head coach" mentioned twice in the first sentence of the lead.
Removed first "head", as it was unnecessary.
Infobox: 1-0-0 should be 1–0–0.
Fixed
Infobox: Overall Statistics-> Overall statistics.  And where is 1–0–0 explained?
The "Overall Statistics" is generated by the template.
Find suitable links for Naval Academy, Navy etc.  Remember this is English-language Wikipedia, not American military football Wikipedia.
Linked Naval Academy, tried to link Navy, but Navy is the official abbreviated name for the team.
1882[A 2], -> notes after punctuation.
Fixed.
(8-0)  -> 8–0 per WP:DASH. Etc.
Added en-dashes.
One para lead, one para article, got to be telling us something, are we sure this is what we'd expect from a good article?
No comment.
"Vauix Carter entered..." no need to repeat first name.
Removed
"Head coaching record" section is pointless, it offers nothing beyond the prose.
I generally agree, but this is a standard section for a head coaching bio, so I don't know what I should do.
Ref 4 needs an en-dash.
Added.
Ditto for ""Navy Yearly Results–1880-1884"".
Corrected.
I'm perplexed to be honest.  I can't honestly find it in my heart to agree that this is a good article on the basis that it's so brief and there's nothing really to mention, but technically, once the above comments are dealt with, I'm not sure if we could argue about it.  I'll put it on hold but I may need to seek more general advice before promoting it.  I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I expected something like this would happen. I really wish there was more about him, but after about two weeks of trying to dig up stuff, this was all I found. I debated nominating this for a little while, and decided to after seeing that articles like United States Code Congressional and Administrative News have been passed. I have attempted to address all of your other concerns. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fine to pass if the reviewer wishes to do so; the relevant criterion here is the one covering broadness. It arguably covers the main aspects, at least to the degree that's possible given the limited reliable sources available. Unless one were to argue the opposite -- that it is inherently unable to meet the broadness criterion because of the limited information available about the subject -- it should be fine. I personally would suggest a couple of paragraph breaks in the "Biography and career" section for easier reading. This is a nitpick, but in the lead, "holds the distinction as being" can be just easily be conveyed with "was". I'd also remove the word "very", as it doesn't add anything to the meaning of "first". --Batard0 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I split the "Biography and career" section into two paragraphs where I thought it was appropriate, and I removed the "very" from the lead. I tried looking for more info, and all I found was a self-published website which just repeated most of what was already included in this article. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 00:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
" It would remain the school's first victory until the 1884 season," -> surely it will always remain the first victory.  Perhaps you meant "only"?
As to the length, it is true that not all articles are capable of reaching GA status.  Sometimes, there is simply not enough known information.  It is also true that short articles are sometimes passed.  Its a judgement call as to where the line lies, which I will leave up to TRM. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the first victory thing. I did mean to put "only victory". Thanks for pointing that out. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done deal.  As far as I can see from a brief search, this comprehensive, and meets the GA criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked findagrave.com and it lists a Vaulx Carter (parents Samuel Jefferson Carter; 1803 - 1873, and Anne C Vaulx Carter; 1818 - 1874) who was born 14 Mar 1861. I don't have access to the source you've listed, so I can't check against that, but it might be something to look into either way. It seems Mount Olivet Cemetery holds a record of his ashes being scattered, so they may have some information they would be willing to share, like his actual date of death. A correct date of birth/death may help uncover some additional information too. Leonhard Fortier  (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vaulx Carter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214091548/http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/independents/navy/coaching_records.php to http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/independents/navy/coaching_records.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)