Talk:Kyle Kendrick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to take on this GA review. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• I would just watch the second paragraph for subjective language. The assertion about having an undefined role is a little confusing in the lead. Reading through the body, it sounds like he started the season in the bullpen and joined the starting rotation later in the season.

Early life

• The unattributed quote about high fives and bubble gum strikes me as unencyclopedic and doesn't add much to what is already there. Maybe replace with one of the quotes from Kyle about the specific impact his father had?

Minor leagues (2003-2006)

• "In 2006..." - this sentence is pretty long. Consider breaking into two for readability. The short quote with the ellipsis ("patience was... rewarded) is a little awkward; consider rephrasing in your own words.
• In the second paragraph, you might specify which levels Lakewood and Clearwater belong to. In the next section, you mention that Reading is AA, but it might be better to specify that on the first mention of Reading.

2007-2009

• Consider a wikilink for no-decision
• Second paragraph - Split the first sentence, as his season performance seems unrelated to the Japan prank.
• I would change "slow and arduous process" to "arduous process".

2010-2012

• "After a decent first half of the season..." - would prefer stats, or at least a win-loss record here.
• "Throughout the season, when he managed..." - Not sure this is significant. Most pitchers are getting killed if taken out before the sixth.

Will come back later and leave more feedback. Good job so far! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

All addressed, as all are valid. Thanks, EricEnfermero. Go Phightins! 20:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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.	Few minor punctuation fixes by reviewer.
	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.	Couple of instances of non-neutral language corrected by nominator
	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.	Great job on this article. It was a pleasure to review.