Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football/archive1

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on improvements and content decisions before I nominate it for FA. Thanks, —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty thorough, but it has two major shortcomings. First, the lead does not come close to summarizing the article. The lead should summarize (briefly!) each point in the article. Specifically, mention major themes in the history, probably should mention the mascot, possibly two or three of the most notable players/coaches to come out of the program, etc. Done

The other main problem is the prose. In general, the article is well written even though it differs quite a bit from the writing style I'm used to reading on wikipedia. The tone, however, just seems a little too informal, with too many idioms and a sometimes nostalgic or sentimental tone. For example:

"The first season saw Tech play three games and lose all three" (the first season saw?) Done
"Tech went right after Heisman following the 1903 season" (what do you mean they went right after him? This would be highly confusing to a foreign reader not familiar with English figures of speech) Done
"Techmen," "Techsters," etc. These nicknames seem out of character when they are used in the prose. Try to use a formal tone even if these nicknames are in common use. Done (don't see any use of those nicknames in the prose)
"Curry's teams had gotten so bad..." again, the informal tone creeps in all over the place. If this is to pass as a FA, this will have to be neutralized.
"Bobby Dodd took the reins of Georgia Tech football following..." Done

The content is good, but requires some time and dedication to rework the prose, but no other major issues. Jeff Dahl 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked to expand the lead a bit, trying to conform it more to the structure of the article. Take a look and let me know if this is an improvement. LaMenta3 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]