Talk:Logan Drake/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Final verdict

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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