Talk:Eppa Rixey/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KnowIG (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok first things first. First paragraph in the legacy section shouldn't be there. Personal life or early life would be more appropiate. Early life Phillies stuff is that 1912 or 1911. You may want to put that in the section below. I can't see the stuff about him being disliked which you have in the lead.

By the looks you've done all the stuff from the previous review. Although you hint that there is couple of bits to do. Please address the issues from that. Looks good for a GA. I'm putting on hold. KnowIG (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither Rixey nor Rigler got any signing bonus. Should be recieved

And earn run average when you first say it should have (ERA) next to it. Putting on hold KnowIG (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I finished everything, as for the article itself I will expand it but when I feel its ready for a FA run. Right now I been working nearly everyday and with school, I have no time to expand. I want to work on Casey Stengel as well with the little time I have. Thanks Secret ^account 01:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've hidden the bold claim. As I can't see it. if it is backed up please reverse me. Passed

Quick Fail 1.The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.N

2.The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.N

3.There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags. (See also QF-tags.)N

4.The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.N

5.The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.N

Review 1.The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar. Check for coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections, appropriate use of wikilinks, and other aspects of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria. After you have read the article, check that the lead section is a good summary and introduction to the topic.Y

2.The article should be factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, with inline citations (typically using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references) for the six types of material named in the GA criteria.[2] Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; however, this is not often the case. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources), that they support the content of the article, and that the article contains no plagiarism. Ensure that any text copied from sources is contained within quotation marks, or a quotation template, and that there is no close paraphrasing of source material. You should ensure that the article does not contain any original synthesis of source material, or other forms of original research.Y

3.The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.Y

4.The article should be written from the neutral point of view: this viewpoint strives to represent all other views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them. Y 5.The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars: constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here. Y

6.The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales. Y KnowIG (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If not so already now maybe a good time to send for a copy edit whilst you try to think what else is needed for a FA. :) KnowIG (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)