Talk:Tim McClelland/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 15:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: This nomination is going to be failed, as the nominator has asked for and been granted an indefinate block, and there are issues that would prevent the article from being promoted as is. I will, however, provide a full review, for the benefit of anyone that wishes to take this to GAN again. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:

Needs work

What makes the third paragraph in the "Notable games" section notable? As someone that's not a fan of Baseball, I have no idea whether single-game playoffs are inherently notable, and the paragraph lacks context on the games' notability.
I would mention what his BA and MA are in; those aren't common degrees, and are relevant to his career choice.

b. MoS compliance:

Needs work

Content should not appear only in the lead and not in the body text (this is not expressly prohibited, but is strongly discouraged). Information about his jersey number and his stance appear in the lead, but not in the body text. At the very least, that content needs to be cited.
I don't feel that the lead meets the "Relative emphasis" portion of WP:LEAD.

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:

Acceptable

b. proper citation use:

Needs work

The entire first and third paragraphs of the "Controversies" section are not cited.
The last sentence of the Sosa paragraph in "Notable games" also needs a citation.

c. no original research: No comment

No comment on this, per concerns with 2b.

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects:

Question

Was this umpire involved in the 1999 Major League Umpires Association mass resignation situation? He would have been active during the time, and even if his was not a resignation that was accepted, he might still have resigned. If so, that needs to be mentioned.

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Acceptable

5. Stable: Acceptable

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: Normally I would kick this back out to the nominator to fix. In this case, however, the nominator has been indefinitely blocked (by request), and there is no indication that another user has taken custody of the GAN. As such, I am failing this review. NOT PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]