Talk:Logan Drake

Logan Drake 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.
Review: October 27, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Baseball Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: South Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Logan Drake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review. The prose is very clear, but I have a few queries on some of the sources. Mertbiol (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

I have made a couple of minor changes.
In general, the prose is very clear.

Sources

[10] does not support "After one more game and a 10.32 ERA in his five appearances".
[13] does not support "He was released in May [from Wichita Falls]".
[13] does not support "starting with Macon" – it only says that Burke was interested in acquiring him.
[14] does not support "He pitched for the team for two months" – it only says that Drake came to Maxon from the Knoxville team several weeks ago.
[18] does not mention Drake – so can’t be used to support "his final professional appearance".
I have checked references [1], [2], [3], [4], [6], [11], [15], [16], [19], [20] and have found no problems.

Copyvio

Earwig gives a score of 4.8%. I have not detected any instances of close paraphrasing or copying from the sources.

Stability

Article is stable.

Image

Image is appropriately licensed.

Placing review on hold

With just a few queries on the sources, I will put the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will double check the sources shortly. Most should be easy fixes with just throwing in the b-r ref; I was trying not to overuse the stat references but I guess I should've been adding that in. Wizardman 14:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 10 and 18, 13 and 14 I'm gonna have to dig further maybe I grabbed the wrong reference after I typed it up. Wizardman 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13 and 14 now fixed. 14 I just copyedited since I was admittedly guessing, 13 I found a second reference for the part of concern that ties it together. Wizardman 00:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Promoting to GA status Mertbiol (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]