Talk:Mark Baldwin (baseball)/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 1TWO3Writer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 11:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Diberoonis. Part of the August 2023 backlog.

@Therapyisgood Check here for issues. Just found that nifty tool. :) 123Writer talk 13:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Infobox, Lead, Early life, References

edit

Spot-check went well.

Infobox contains portrait and relevant information. Either cited in-line or in article body.

Lead contains only info also found in body. Relevant summary of career. No style issues, and length proportionate to article.

Early life concise. No style issues. Probably doesn't need expansion as focus is on his baseball career.

No formatting issues with references; seems consistent and does not use blacklisted sources. Usage of online and archived newspaper clippings; good and easy verifiability. Notes usage also good.

123Writer talk 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

While spot checking the Columbus Solons and Chicago Pirates (1889–90) section, I noticed reference 40 also being removed. I'll list any I catch here, be sure to check the others:
19, 40
Fixed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ones I spot checked and are OK (good links and relevant):
1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 21 27, 35, 38, 46, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57, 63, 67, 72, 78, 80, 83, 90, 92, 98, 99, 102
Another issue is an untitled ref: 64
Fixed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
123Writer talk 16:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Professional career (Layout, first section)

edit

Length denotes proper focus. Subheadings good. Usage of blockquote and photo good.

Spot-check for initial section went well. Does the team Baldwin debuted with have a name? If it does, I recommend adding it.

Chicago wanted Baldwin to play in the 1886 World Series, but the St. Louis Browns, against whom Chicago played, objected, and Baldwin never played. Could be rewritten. Suggestion: ...but the St. Louis Browns, the/an opposing team, objected, so Baldwin never played. Your discretion.

123Writer talk 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Professional career (Chicago White Stockings (1887–88))

edit

Spot check: 19. Seems to have been moved. Other checks went well.

...Spalding's 1888–89 World Tour, in which he participated, after Baldwin... Probably unnecessary.

Added a comma. Added a wikilink to the AA.

123Writer talk 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Columbus Solons and Chicago Pirates (1889–90)

edit

Spot-check: 40. has the same issue as 19. All other spot-checks went OK.

...in a showing described as "anything but credible,"... The sudden quote feels a little awkward so perhaps rewrite the sentence or use my suggestion.

123Writer talk 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pittsburgh Pirates and New York Giants (1891–93)

edit

Spot-check: No bad links. Also all relevant.

...good for fifth in the NL. What does this mean?

123Writer talk 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Realized what it meant. Good according to whom? 123Writer talk 21:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Independent ball (1894–95)

edit

Spot-check good. No writing issues.

123Writer talk 21:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

After professional baseball and personal life

edit

Spot-check OK.

The first paragraph contains info that happened during his career and should be placed up during that time frame to maintain chronological order. Title could be changed to: Life after baseball and death, or something along those lines.

Good point. Anyways, good job! 123Writer talk 07:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

123Writer talk 21:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.