Talk:Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article. I look forward to working with you. I will be busy the next few days and I will be reviewing the article in the meantime. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here are my first thoughts TonyTheTiger:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Pass! Thanks for addressing concerns. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Here we are. I am not a huge fan of the fact that it does not contain an image/diagram. It's looking good overall. I'll be checking the references and then giving you an analysis as needed. The key is images. I cannot pass this article without it having images. Best.
- I added an image of him pitching for the Dodgers in 1993. That is the closest we are going to get.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, anything that isn't marked as met is something I have not yet checked. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Checking in again. The lack of imagery is a concern, but given the circumstances and article subject, I think it's fine, considering all of the referenced charts and diagrams. I will be checking the references. Sportzilla | ROARR!! 02:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note that you are suppose to evaluate this against WP:WIAGA, which does not require any images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to start a fight regarding this, but criteria 6 is all about images. Either way, I'm currently checking references. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is the criteria for images that are included. It does not mean that any must be included. This is very heavily tread territory. It is WELL-established that images are not required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have one more complaint regarding WP:WTW. In the third paragraph, the word "hot" in "stayed hot in the playoffs" is not an ideal word and is not a completely neutral phrase either and same with "oddly" in the first paragraph of the Prelude section. Otherwise, everything else looks good. Ping me when you're done and I'll finish off the review. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is the criteria for images that are included. It does not mean that any must be included. This is very heavily tread territory. It is WELL-established that images are not required.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to start a fight regarding this, but criteria 6 is all about images. Either way, I'm currently checking references. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)