Talk:Weldy Walker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks as always for the contributions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

http://avdbkr20.wikispaces.com/Final+Draft+of+Research+Paper seems unlikely to be a reliable source. Is it needed here?
It's not a GA-level issue, but it's a little confusing to have the first Peterson book reference appear as a partial reference, instead of putting the full reference first. Can this be flipped, or the full book citations moved to a "bibliography" subsection?
I've changed a few instances of "brother Fleetwood" to "Weldy's brother Fleetwood" to avoid making it sound like a title ("Brother Fleetwood").

Gotta break off here for a bit. Hope to pick this up and go to the end later tonight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliography would probably be better to avoid those jumps so I'll work on that. Removed the source since it wasn't needed anyway, was only used alongsid other citations. Wizardman 03:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to give a phrase of context on who Cap Anson is for clarity--"Chicago White Stockings player-manager Cap Anson" or some such?
Sol White could also use a phrase of context ("future Hall of Famer Sol White"?)

That's all I really have to suggest here. This seems solid and probably ready to pass; it's a well-written article on a fascinating bit of baseball history. I'd heard vaguely of the Walker brothers as footnotes to stories about Jackie Robinson, but it's interesting to learn more. Thanks again for your work on it. Let me do the checklist and make sure I'm not missing anything; I want to do a few spotchecks and go over the references again, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Added clarification on those points. Wizardman 15:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Article is excellently written. Spotchecks were difficult to perform for many of the sources, but those that I can see in Google Books show no problems. (The 1880s and '90s sources would be out of copyright anyway.) I think a little more context could be given to two points above, but it's no reason to hold this review for.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Terrific research. References could be slightly better organized per the above, but it's not a GA issue.
	2c. it contains no original research.	It sets my antenna mildly going that the article draws on primary source data like the Oberlin College Archives and US census data, but the use is minimal, and mostly about things that don't need citation under the GA criteria anyway.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Clearly comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA; thanks for contributing another excellent piece