Talk:Brandon Marsh (baseball)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sewageboy (talk · contribs) 18:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to help review this page for GA status. I will begin today and hopefully get most or all of the prose review work done today. Sewageboy (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and minor leagues

"As a result, high-ranked prospects were assigned to alternate training sites to continue their development and await potential major league promotions." It should be noted that Marsh was among this group.
- Added a clause of "including Marsh"

Los Angeles Angels

"By the end of May, he had a reputation for production in the clutch..." I see that Jeff Fletcher gives a nod to Marsh's clutch-time hitting in the OCR article, but it's only one source and a small sample size. The RISP stats should suffice and the portion about having a reputation for being clutch can be omitted (or supported with some more sources describing this reputation.)
- Rephrased to he was batting .366, including a .932 OPS with runners in scoring position.

Philadelphia Phillies

Marsh has returned from his bone bruise injury, so that information can be added to the article to keep it up-to-date.
- Added. I'm holding off on adding a few other articles until the season is over to avoid WP:RECENTISM. For instance, this article suggests Marsh is on an offensive tear, but includes a sample size of four games post-bone bruise.

I'll take a look at the references next. The prose is very good and with minimal errors -- thank you for your contributions. Sewageboy (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

The reference titled "Angels' Jo Adell and Brandon Marsh have something to prove after early struggles" from the Los Angeles Times (currently reference number 42) is denoted as limited URL access when it should be marked as subscription.
- Fixed. I run a paywall bypass through Firefox, so I don't always see limited access vs. subscription only.

I ran the article through Earwig's tool and it checks out. References are all good. Sewageboy (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Image licensing checks out
No edit wars or instability

Everything checks out and the article is well-written with very few errors. I'll pass it once the aforementioned issues are resolved. Good job and thank you for your work on this page. Sewageboy (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sewageboy Thank you for the review. I have addressed all comments. — Ghost River 15:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the GA status now. Thanks again for your contributions to this article! Sewageboy (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]