Talk:Joe Tinker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Having previously reviewed Evers, I might as well make the full double play. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days; thanks as always for your work on these. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Great. But the "full double play" would also include the third member of Baseball's Sad Lexicon :P – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I snagged 'em both. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha, great! Didn't catch that you claimed Chance too. Take your time, no rushies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks solid and essentially ready for promotion. The sources are good, the writing is good, and the coverage appears comprehensive. Comparison to this suggests no major aspects are left out here. Thanks as always for your work on these.

I made a few tweaks; feel free to revert any you disagree with. Only one small point I couldn't immediately resolve:

• "Tinker then batted .263 with as " -- is something missing after with (RBIs)? Or just an extra word? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Good catch. That was supposed to be "Tinker then batted. 263 with a home run as", but then I realized that Tinker's 1908 WS home run was the first under the Brush Rules, which have governed every WS since 1905, and so I gave it its own sentence after that, and left an extra word. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Great--we'll see if we can finish out the double-play with Chance tomorrow, then. Or possibly even tonight, depending on how much the Cards vs. Padres hold my interest... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Excellent! You found the needle in the haystack then with my one mistake there. Hope the game is a good one, I might check it out after the Yankees game is over. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, enjoy yours as well -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor copyediting point above.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass