Talk:Johnny Evers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this might be a record for time from nomination to a review being initiated. I'm just finishing off the references right now, but the text should be ready to review whenever you get around to it. No rush. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I love reviewing classic baseball stuff--I know it's unsporting of me, but I try not to let anybody else get to it first. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my next nomination will be Frank Chance. And I'll get to Joe Tinker after that to complete the set. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate GA double-play combination... I like it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks quite strong on first pass--well written, well sourced, and interesting. I still need to do a bit of verification research but it's hard to see what "main aspects" wouldn't be covered by this article. I made some minor edits as I went; please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert any you disagree with.

Fun fact: simply typing "double-play combination" into Google brings up five Tinker-Evers-Chance references on the first page.

Anyway, only two initial suggestions:

It seems a shame not to mention the play's famous name, "Merkle's Boner", in the paragraph about it, for clarity if not for amusement. Perhaps a sentence could be added like "The play became popularly known as 'Merkle's Boner'."?
As a poem published in 1910, "Baseball's Sad Lexicon" is out of copyright, and it isn't very long. What would you think of including it as a block quotation or a sidebar here?

Checklist

Though I've made two suggestions above, neither seems to me necessary for this article reach Good Article status.

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.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	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

Thanks! I'll keep those comments in mind, I believe I could make those changes, not just to Evers but also Tinker and Chance. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]