Talk:1920 Muncie Flyers season/GA1

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. Under "Offseason", second paragraph: "During the meeting, the name of American Professional Football Association was chosen; officers of the league were elected with Jim Thorpe as president; the trophy that would be awarded to the league champions; as well as other things." The semicolons disrupt the flow of this sentence and make it nearly impossible to read. It's also not a complete/proper sentence (What about the trophy?) And if you cut out the middle two clauses it reads "During the meeting, the name of American Professional Football Association was chosen, as well as other things". I guess that's a rather roundabout way for me to say that the sentence needs reworking for flow purposes.
2. Under "Regular season", "To start of the season, the Flyers played in the first game of the season against the Rock Island Independents" needs to be edited for clarity and to avoid redundancy. In fact, I usually don't mind doing copyediting and I started doing some at the beginning of the article, but this entire paragraph needs to be reviewed for basic grammatical considerations that should be checked prior to a GA nomination ("The Flyers tried to schedule game for the next few week"). A mistake here or there happens, but this whole paragraph is difficult to read.
3. Same paragraph, next sentence "This game was such a blowout," sounds very POV to me (not to mention it sets up my expectations that the Flyers won, not lost, since that's who the article has been talking about to this point). Per
   WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
   , it would probably be better to report the actual score, note that the other team wanted a better opponent, and let the reader decide for themselves whether or not it was a blowout.
4. Same paragraph, most of the second half lacks any citations. Other than "These games are not counted in the APFA standings." (which is self-evident) the material starting with "The Flyers eventually scheduled a game" requires citations because it could be challenged.
5. Under "Schedule", you don't explain what the dagger symbol represents (it's in the alt text, but it needs to be in the prose as well)
6. Same section, it is written "The games against the local teams are listed, but are not counted in the standings. This is why the record column does not change following the result of those games." But in the chart itself, the record column does change.
7. Under "Week 2: at Rock Island Independents", there's no reason that "Since kickoff times were not standardized, it is unknown if the Muncie–Rock Island or Columbus–Dayton game is the first game" needs to be bracketed off, because it disrupts the flow. It should be integrated into the prose of the section because it's an essential piece of information to the article, not just a side note.
8. Per
   WP:ABBR
   "Postal codes and abbreviations of place names (e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks (Yorkshire)) should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." These should be corrected as they interrupt the flow of the game summaries.
9. I'm worried that, because the article ends so abruptly, there's a problem with comprehensiveness. I feel like there should be some sort of "legacy" or "aftermath" or such section that explains that season's lasting notability and maybe summarizes the Flyers' final standing in prose. For example, I notice from the the navbox at the bottom that they played one more season and then folded. Surely there's something to say about that that would make a nice "end" to the article? Even if its very basic and simple, it at least brings some conclusiveness to the article and addresses the comprehensiveness.
10. Also in terms of comprehensiveness, there's not really much mention of the players themselves, which are an integral part of the subject of the article. Perhaps a few sentences about the makeup of the team and mention of the more notable players in the "roster" section would be helpful? It would also be a great way to add to the "end" section as well (ie. X players from this team eventually went on to... whatever).

I stopped copyediting past the paragraph mentioned above, but the article still needs a more substantial copyedit and some carefully thought out additions to address the comprehensiveness issues. I feel that the best way to proceed is to have the concerns addressed and then renominate so that a second set of eyes can review the new content and prose, therefore I am going to fail the article at this time. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to