GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose, grammar, & spelling are all fine. Shearonink (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Complies with the MOS guidelines of the above sections. Shearonink (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    References all look stylistically fine, will take a while to check their veracity/reliability. My Review might take longer than 7 days. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    • Am working through the references, spot-checking the majority. The major problem I have found so far is that "vault.si.com" restricts the number of time the reader can access the Vault. So all those refs - #18, #24, #30, #42, #59, #63, #73, #74, #75, #78, #93 - will need to have that limited access in the Cite web template. Please refer to Template:Cite web#Access indicators for url-holding parameters for the method to handle letting readers know about the restrictions on access. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same basic issue with the three citations to New York Times articles - Ref # 41, #80, #87. All the Times refs need to be marked as "Subscription required". Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • LA Times ref - Ref # 50 - needs to have "subscription required" as well. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All the citations check out but the various access issues - "subscriptions required", etc. - need to be dealt with. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    Statements are sourced, nothing is asserted without a cited reference. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Ran Earwig's copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Covers Bream's life and career, not just The Slide. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Related to A above. Yes to this as well. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Agreed. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No ongoing edit war or content dispute. Shearonink (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ((GAList/check|yes}
    This is on hold, I am concerned about the infobox/main image. The original source, an eBay auction, has expired. It appears to possibly be from a Pirates publication or a possible baseball card. Since the auction has expired the claimed licensing is unverifiable. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the image, it is a black&white version of an image that also appears in a 1988 Panini Sticker set, see this storefront link. The claimed copyright status by the uploader on Commons - that the copyright was not renewed? - is in doubt. Shearonink (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the image. You may be right; I've never seen any other photos from that Panini sticker set used to illustrate Wikipedia articles. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    See 6A above. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This review is On Hold pending 1)the image copyright status and 2)the subscription required parameter for the Sports Illustrated refs, the New York Times refs, and the LA Times ref. Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues taken care of. Congrats - it's a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More