Talk:Jack Warhop/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 21:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Since the writer is inactive, as long as there aren't any major issues, I'll simply make any changes I see myself, of course noting them here. Wizardman 21:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

"1908 to 1915, for the New" No comme after 1915

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Considered by baseball insiders and historians as a "tough-luck" pitcher," This isn't noted anywhere else in the article, so either source it here, reword, or remove it.

It's mentioned in the "Major League Baseball career" section – last sentence of the first paragraph. "He was respected throughout baseball, and Baseball Magazine once called him the "unluckiest pitcher in the American League".[3]" I'm operating under the premise that tough-luck is the same as unlucky. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it, since it is noted, just not the exact phrase. Wizardman 18:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Warhop had an underhand submarine delivery, which gave him the nickname "Crab"." Same as above, no source.

Expanded use of ref 1 (Greatness in Waiting). Although no link is provided here, I found the book source on Google Books [1]. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure all scores and records (29-7) use dashes.

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"National and American League started to take notice ability." Missing some words here.

Fixed. Worded it as "National and American League started to take notice of his ability." —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"However they soon sold " comma after however

Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"August 10, 1909, and " no comma after 1909

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article just jumps from 1910 to 1913, missing the two seasons in between. Since 1912 might have been his unluckiest season there's certainly things that can be mentioned for both years.
"as during Warhop tenure," Warhop's

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source would be nice for the marriage.

The only source I could find was Genealogy Trails. Is that a reliable source, or iffy at best? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. It cites its own sources and seems decently researched, so if that's really the only one I'll say it's ok for GA, though I don't think it would fly at FA. Wizardman 18:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough issues with this article that I do not feel comfortable doing them myself, actually. I'll put it on hold and either hope Secret comes back from a break to do it or hope one of the other baseball project members can pick it up. Wizardman 15:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All we need is some info on 1911 and 1912 and we're all set. The google news archives have a few NYT public domain pieces that could help add to the stats for this. Wizardman 03:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Found the NYT sources along with a couple of other newspapers. Will add them to the article soon. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished completing the 1911 season; will do the 1912 season a few hours later. I've also split the MLB career section into years — 1908 to 1912 and 1913 to 1915. Are these divisions fine, or would it be better to split it evenly at four and four (seasons)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished addressing the final comment. Since a significant amount of prose has been added/modified, it would be advisable to take a second look at the entire article – I'm open to any additional comments that may arise. Last question – would it be fair for me to claim this as one of "my" GA, given the amount of prose and sources I've added in this last few days? I understand I was not the nominator of this article, but I need just one more GA to get a Triple Crown upgrade and I do think I qualify as a significant contributor. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do another read-through tonight to be safe. As for the GA claim, that's really up to you. If you feel like you made enough of an impact on the article, then go ahead and claim it. If not, then don't. Wizardman 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the article a couple times now, and found no more issues now, aside from one that I fixed myself. More importantly, I actually think the article is vastly improved from what it was. It didn't feel like there was much meat in the article beforehand, but that's been plenty resolved now. I'll now pass the article as a GA. Also, to answer your earlier question, based on the improvements I'd be fine with you "claiming" this as a GA co-written by you. Wizardman 02:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]