Talk:Ronald Torreyes

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 16:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Sports is not an area I am super familiar with, but I will do my best. I can probably have this done within 24 hours or so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Overall, mostly well written. A few minor points raised that need to be addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

   All issues addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Attention has been paid to MOS in the prose. No issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are appropriately formatted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   References look good, primarily to newspapers and reliable sports publications like ESPN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   No unsourced statements to be found. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig check came back clean. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   One minor point needing clarification and a possible change. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

   Point addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I do not see any issues in this area. Provides broad coverage and doesn't get bogged down in excessive detail anywhere. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Maintains an objective and encyclopedic tone throughout. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues with stability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All three images are appropriately licensed. Interestingly, File:Ronald Torreyes (44216774812).jpg is currently listed on Flickr as All Rights Reserved, but the archived version from when it was originally uploaded to Commons [1] was cc-by-sa-2.0, so no issue here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images and captions are relevant and appropriate for the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am placing the review on hold until a few minor points are clarified, then I will promote this article to GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

   All comments have been addressed, I am passing this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Free agent" can be wikilinked in the first sentence, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with baseball.
  • Done.
• The article seems to somewhat abruptly jump from age 7 to Torreyes being signed by the MLB. Is there any information that can be added here to reduce the gap?
  • It's difficult to find information on the childhoods of international players, because they tend not to get the "hometown interviews" that American and Canadian players do, but I added another sentence from the MLB.com article.
• "On December 23, 2011, the Reds traded Torreyes, Travis Wood, and Dave Sappelt to the Chicago Cubs in exchange for..." Chicago Cubs can be wikilinked here.
  • Done and removed the WL further down. AWB issue.
• "He was the second-youngest man on the roster, older only than Luis Severino," How old was Torreyes at this time?
  • Clarified and added a source.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings Thank you for your quick review; everything should be addressed now. — GhostRiver 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me now, I will promote this to GA. Congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)