Talk:Cole Hamels/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this within the next few days. Thanks Secret ^account 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok reviewing....

"Numerous injury and maturity issues, such as an injury sustained in a bar fight," Maturity issues according to who? Also injury is mentioned twice in the same sentence, maybe better as "Numerous issues, such as an injury...."
"preeminent minor league pitcher" preeminent is a colorful word choice.... top pitching prospect is better.
"or the Phillies and has remained there since." Has remained there since is redundant as anyone could tell he's still with the Phillies organization
"He was the top pitcher on the team entering the 2008 season, and during the Phillies' postseason run, during which they ultimately won the 2008 World Series, he won the World Series Most Valuable Player Award and from that point on was the Phillies marquee starter." That's one big run-on sentence, also I don't think the latter half of the sentence "from that point on" is necessary because of NPOV issues.
Is there any better word than "He plateaued", especially after he was better in 2010 than 2009? Maybe his numbered dipped?
"joined by fellow aces" better as joined by fellow pitchers....
- This is just from the lead. The article is filled with colorful language, redundancy and confusing text... "His cutter, once he attained a "feel for it", helped him increase his groundball rate (percentage of balls in play that were groundballs), including to over 50-percent in 2011.[92]" poor and choppy prose, and some of the citations (some are missing date and author information 67 for example, other are questionable like this, citation 32 has the wrong information, and that's only a quick check) this article isn't ready. Are you sure you want to continue with this? If it wasn't WikiCup I would be failing it quickly and I hate making exceptions but I'll do one here? But this review might take a few days because of the issues. Secret ^account 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, much of the "colorful" language you mention is derived directly from the sources, however I did err in the fact that I forgot to consider colorful language in my final pre-nom review. I will do that at this time. My apologies. If you don't mind, please continue. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I did part of the review via IRC with Newyorkadam and Go Phightins! as I felt that was the best way to review an article that had many small issues. It is way better now, I will finish the review tomorrow. Secret ^account 04:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much better, passing, note I did much of the review via IRC with the two nominators. Thanks Secret ^account 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]