Talk:Allie Reynolds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria assessed against

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Well-written

• The prose looks a little bit choppy, with a number of very short paragraphs. Can these be combined or better linkage done between these short paragraphs? --LauraHale (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've merged some of the short paragraphs. I'll give the prose a look soon. Do you have any specifics? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It looks better, but could always use improvement. It just looked visually very, very choppy with one sentence paragraphs.
• Can the lead be expanded? It does not summarise the article very well because the article is quite long and the lead is quite short. --LauraHale (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead is expanded – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks muchly. :) Better now. --LauraHale (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• The organisation is a bit confusing.

1 Early life
2 Professional career
3 Nickname
4 Post-playing career
5 Honors
6 Personal life
7 Baseball Hall of Fame candidacy

What is the rationale for this order? Personal life includes date of birth and death. Basehall of Fame comes after that, instead of in the Honors section or immediately after the honors section. --LauraHale (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I believe it might've been in that order before I started working on this page. I made "Baseball Hall of Fame candidacy" a subsection of "Honors", and moved "Post-playing career" after "Honors". That makes more sense to me, but let me know what else should be moved around. I'm not entirely sure where the "Nickname" section should be, but it might be fine there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you possibly merge personal life, early life and post-playing career? These all seem variants on the same thing and along the same theme. --LauraHale (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Poking this. This is the only thing holding thins up. --LauraHale (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, got distracted by the timeliness of Philip Humber and Philip Humber's perfect game. I'll finish this today. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • That was faster than I thought it would be, actually. I moved his marriage from the "Personal life" section up to the "Early life" section. I feel it fits there since they dated in high school and married at the age of 18. I moved the only remaining part of the personal life section, his death, to post-playing career, since it was after his playing career. Those two sections may be too disparate and large to merge into one. How does that work? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks. That works for me. --LauraHale (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• There are a number of unsourced statements in this article. They have been labeled with fact tags. These need to be cleaned. --LauraHale (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Spot checking for plagiarism and facts being supported by references.

• [6] checks out. Wording is a bit close but I cannot figure out how to reword this sentence with out losing / changing meaning. --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• [24] checks. --LauraHale (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• [39] The fraternity is not mentioned. --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't verify the fraternity. I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Should be good now. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• [40] Quote in referenced part does not appear in source. --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. It's exact from the source now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Should be good now. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• [25] checks out. --LauraHale (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• [27] checks out. --LauraHale (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• [42] Cannot find where it says that he got less than three votes, just that he did not get the 50%+ required. --LauraHale (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Swapped the source with another. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Should be good now. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Article appears to cover the most important parts of this player's life. The article organisation makes this a bit hard to understand though. --LauraHale (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Read the article and it does not appear to have any major neutrality problems I can identify. --LauraHale (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Stable

• Article is stable. No major edit wars. --LauraHale (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Article has an image, which contains an appropriate copyright notice. --LauraHale (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)