Terrible Towel

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I recently took three days to completely re-write the entire article, I am hoping to get it up to GA status. Comments on anything are welcome.

Thanks, Blackngold29 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a lovely article; please tell me it isn't a joke at the expense of us gullible Brits. Assuming that it isn't, here are some points for consideration:

• Article shows signs of carelessless in preparation - lots of typos, misuses of commas and apostrophes, mis-spellings etc. I have fixed a number of these, but I'm sure there are more. The text wants going over, slowly, by a skilled copyeditor who will iron out some of the awkward phrasing.
  • I ran the whole article thourgh MS Word and corrected all of the mis-spelled words it caught. Blackngold29 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead coud be expended, so that it becomes a summary of the whole article. Within the lead, assertions that the Towel is recognised "throughout the world" should be toned down.
• What was the trouble with FCC that was avoided by the decision to have black towels?
• Wikipedia requirements for ndashes and nbsps are generally ignored in the article. Suggest you check protocol for dashes use in football scores, e.g.28-10
  • Is the 93–yard to be an n-dash also? I think it looks kind of silly, but couldn't find an example on the dash article. It is a figure dash now. Blackngold29 22:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a tenses conflict in this sentence: "Even while the Steelers struggled through the 1980s, the Towel has remained a large part of the franchise". (First clause past, second clause present)
• The heading "Similar gimmicks and opposition" is confusing, and doesn’t work. Suggest you replace it.
• "Hate the Yankees Hankies" were once distributed… – what actually was distributed? Hankies with "Hate the Yankees" on them? Or something else, with "Hate the Yankees Hankies" on it? Please clarify.
  • The reference doesn't go too far in depth on it. I would assume it was basically what it is entitled; an anti-Yankee hanky (say that five-times fast). A Google seach didn't turn up anything new, it obvoiusly didn't catch on. I expanded it some, but if you think it should be eliminated I will. Blackngold29 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The quote towards the end which ends "Not Affectionately" needs a specific citation.

I really enjoyed the article. Spend a little more time on it and it could be really good. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Unless otherwise stated, all issues have been addressed. Blackngold29 05:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]