The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Object. I think that what this article needs is a peer-review and not an A-Class review. The prose is too choppy in many parts of it (see for instance the second paragraph of the lead, and "Collegiate athletics", where we have the combination of choppy prose and a stubby par). A copyediting is definitely needed. In the printed source of notes 9-10 I don't see any pages.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
