Jump to content

Talk:Frank Chance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFrank Chance has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 21, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 8, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that before embarking on his Hall of Fame baseball career, Frank Chance (pictured) pursued a career in dentistry?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 9, 2019.

Greatest amateur brawler

[edit]

Chance has been called "greatest amateur brawlwer in the world", & once fined his players $10 for shaking hands with opposing team. Trekphiler 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Chance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously reviewed Evers, I might as well make the full double play. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days; thanks as always for your work on these. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After these, I'm planning on taking Baseball's Sad Lexicon to GA to make it a Good Topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fun idea--good luck with it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on first pass, I don't see any issues here. Prose looks solid, research looks good, and in general it seems to be your usual high-quality work. As usual I've made a few tweaks that you should feel free to revert. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
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.
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.
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. Pass