| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made significant additions and changes to the page and feel it is worthy of a re-assessment.
Thanks, GNeysmith (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
edit- The lead is a bit short; it should summarize a little more of the body of the article.
- I'd eliminate the subheadings in the "Path to the Grey Cup" section; just tell the story of the two teams' seasons in prose. Too many subheadings makes the article look very fractured and bitty.
- There are some uncited sentences; everything should have a citation. At the end of a paragraph is fine, if it covers everything in the paragraph, but at the moment there are many sentences with no citation.
- Avoid putting a citation in the section heading; if the whole section is cited to the same source, just put the footnote at the end of each paragraph.
- I would integrate the trivia section into the main article narrative. The first point can go into the pre-game section, for example; and the second and fourth could go in an "After the game" section, perhaps along with a short note on how the teams did the following year.
- You don't need to link 1931 in Canadian Football both in the "Main article" note and in the "See also" section; pick one and remove the other.
-- I've reassessed the article as C-class; it's pretty close to B class but I think it needs a little more polish for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)