Talk:Scott Feldman/GA1

GA Review

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

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on September 6, 2009. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.

I'll be reviewing the article against the good article criteria. Any additional comments are welcome.--Giants27 (c|s) 03:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: ~~"Feldman" seems to be a reoccuring word to start paragraphs. Try "he" or "The Astros selected Feldman..."~~

Manual of Style compliance:

I made some changes, and now (by my quick count) only 8 of 51 paragraphs (never two in a row) begin with Feldman. Let me know if that is not sufficient. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

Refs #14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40-47, 49-56, 62-70, 72, 73, 75-77, 81 and 83 are missing publisher info. Ref #74 is completely lacking. Try using WP:REFTOOLS to fix this.

I'm missing something. Ref 21, for example, lists the publication as being "The San Mateo Daily Journal". My understanding has been that that is sufficient. Please tell me (if it is not) where the criteria that suggests that that is not sufficient is located. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...you're right I must've missed it since it's included in the link which is no problem. However refs #65 and #74 are just links and need the relevant info.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Thanks. I've now addressed those two -- good catch.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No original research:

Is, "He was sent down, however, on May 1. That began a trend, as he was called up and send down five more times during the season," sourced?

Citation added.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is, "The eight innings were Feldman’s major-league high, as he mixed in a changeup, curveball, and slider with his fastball," sourced?

Citation added.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is, "He joined, among others, Kinsler, Brad Ausmus, Kevin Youkilis, Ryan Braun, Gabe Kapler, Jason Marquis, John Grabow, Craig Breslow, Scott Schoeneweis, and Jason Hirsh," sourced?

Citation added.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?: Pass

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ~~Per WP:ALT, there must be alt text for the images. And the image in the infobox needs a caption.~~

Done (hopefully correctly -- I'm a newbie at this issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALT discourages using names. As another editor once told me "describe it as if you're describing it to your blind friend who knows nothing about the subject or the sport".--Giants27 (c|s) 12:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I've taken a second stab. Hopefully this is better.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good.--Giants27 (c|s) 12:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

This article is very close to GA quality and I see no reason why it won't be with the minor tweaks mentioned above.--Giants27 (c|s) 03:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now passing this article for GA, since all of my minor concerns were met. Great job, feel free to review a WP:GAN specifically in the sports and recreation section which is heavily backlogged. Cheers,--Giants27 (c|s) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.