Talk:Gomer Hodge

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gomer Hodge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing this article. MWright96 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• no dab links

Lead

• The acronym of Major League Baseball in parentheses is needed

Early life

• Should Hodge's birth date be included in this section?

Playing career

• "Hodge spent the 1970 season with Savannah Indians," - this sentence lacks the word "the", as is used in the article for the teams Hodge played with
• "However, he struggled the second half of the season," - missing the word "in" or "during" in this sentence
• "and wasn't given the opportunity to field." - was not

References

• no dead links

Overall, article is well-written. On hold. MWright96 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All issues fixed, thanks for the review! Wizardman 13:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Good work. Promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Wizardman, MWright96, why is 6. (illustrated by images ... where possible) passed when this article has zero images? One would expect to see an explanation as to why is this not possible. Do keep in mind that Wikipedia:Non-free content allows you to use a non-free image here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

There are no free images available, and someone who's career was in the late 60s-early 70s would indeed be very unlikely to have one (his death occurring before things like flickr really took off added to the unlikeliness as well, and he began playing in 1963, right at the 'no copyright notice' cutoff for baseball cards and pictures). I'm not a fan of having a nonfree image solely for the sake of having one, given that this is a free encyclopedia and all. Wizardman 15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't have non-free images for the sake of having them – that's why we have the strict criteria. We have them for the sake of significantly increasing readers' understanding of the article topic, and the guideline recognizes that portraits of deceased people at the top of their article for the purpose of identification unambiguously meet this requirement.

This is a content issue in the sense that having images is not mandatory per any policy. An editor (such as the nominator) can choose not to have one. But in the light of GA criteria this is a an omission that doesn't fly. For GA status an article has to bee illustrated, if possible, and non-free images are counted in that possibility. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the non-free content policy, but a Good Article review should not accommodate dissenting opinions when they are in conflict with the GA criteria.

In any case, I have uploaded such an image, as it meets all non-free content criteria and is clearly useful content here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)