A fact from 1935 SMU vs. TCU football game appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the 1935 SMU vs. TCU football game, known as the "Game of the Century", was the first football game in
Texas to be broadcast nationally?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I feel the two schools names should be spelled out in the lead, rather than using the abbreviations.
Added full school names to lead.
"Their game against the Bruins on November 11 was especially noteworthy, as it attracted a crowd of about 50,000 people at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to watch the Mustangs' spread offense lead them to a 21–0 victory over the local team." Is the 50,000 attendance high or low for this type of game? Best to note something to quantity that (it was the highest attendance for UCLA in so long, record for the season, etc).
I could not find any information from the source material indicating the significance of either the attendance or the score, so I have edited the sentence.
The captions for the Rose and Sugar Bowl (in the "Afermath" section) should specify what stadium is what (ex. Rose Bowl (left; pictured 1926) and so on).
Added directions to images.
Otherwise I don't see much else to note here. More images would of course be nice, but I do understand that can be limited. A really high-quality article here, and will be happy to pass once the above are addressed.
Kaiser matias (
talk) 23:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, I've put the article on hold, and while I know that notes seven days to complete things, I am not going to fail if you need more time, as I understand people can be busy.
Kaiser matias (
talk) 23:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Kaiser matias, I just wanted to reach out to let you know that I have completed some edits to the page to address some of the concerns you raised in your review. Thanks for starting this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -
JJonahJackalope (
talk) 17:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
@
JJonahJackalope: It's been a month since the above review and there's been no response. Are you still planning on continuing this nomination? I agree with the reviewer that the hook isn't great and the nomination needs a new one.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Going to wait for OGJ's opinion. It's not an amazing hook but I think it's better than the original.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions) 16:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It's definitely a much better hook.
Onegreatjoke (
talk) 17:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply