Talk:Ty Cobb/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose seem generally OK, maybe a 6/10.

~~Something is wrong with the quote boxes used in the article~~ (fixed)

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

This question over reliable sources needs to be addressed: what are the sources and are they reliable. In addition, I noticed several references that should be combined but are seperate at the moment.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issue with the quote boxes (one too many pipes). I will take a closer look at the prose later tonight. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The really big problem is this supposedly unreliable source. It does look questionable to me, but it should be either confirmed as reliable (in which case explain why here) or replaced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still unreliable source tags in this article. If these are not sorted out in one week then this article will be delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has clearly been some work ongoing then I will give this another week, but please deal with all the unreliable source tags by this time next week.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still unaddressed tags in this article! I'm sorry but this article has been on hold long enough and I am delisting it from GA. Please improve the article and relist it at WP:GAN.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There continue to be minor skirmishes over career hits and batting average. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]