Talk:Roger Bresnahan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Opening review:
• There is one dead link identified by the tool.
  • Removed – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(will continue review in a bit) MathewTownsend (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

minor problems

• "who starred primarily as a catcher and a player-manager" - does a player-manger "star"?

• "Faster than the average catcher, Bresnahan had two inside the park home runs on May 30, 1902." - meaning a faster runner, I gather.
  • Yes – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Bill Klem called the game," - this means calling off the game?
  • Yes – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The Giants sought to get younger and faster in 1909" - sought to get a younger, faster team? (less idiomatic).
  • Fixed – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• "married Gertrude" - does Gertrude have a last name?
  • Having trouble finding it. Even her obituary doesn't say.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

organizational problems

• The lede doesn't cover the article, not only does it not indicate the range of positions he played, and his rather complicated "other life", but doesn't mention his rather salient idiosyncratic personality, his awards, poems about him (rather unusual, isn't it?), significant disagreements etc.
• The article rather falls apart in the end. Surely "personal life" can be integrated into another section that deals with his non player/manager activities. And the "Profile" section is awkward. I don't know how this is usually handled in articles, but it seems like this information should be integrated into his playing career.

MathewTownsend (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass! (I added the artist's name to painting.)

Article passes GA review. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It's certainly stronger now than when you started the review. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)