Talk:Atlanta Braves/GA2
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Nemov (talk · contribs) 16:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it is high time someone took this on. It has been in the queue for an embarrisingly long time. I'll lay some of the groundwork today. Start in earnest tomorrow and hopefully we can get it passed before the end of the year. (I'm away from Monday to Thursday for Christmas, and won't be able to work on it in this period). SSSB (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
edit- Earwigs copivio check highlights no concerns. SSSB (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- All images appear appropriate and no issues are appatent visavis copyright. SSSB (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can't access all the sources (books etc.), but am assuming good faith as the sources I have accessed all seem in good order and all seem to verify the content they are next to. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
1871–1913
edit- Seele, Duffy, McCarthy, and "Slidin'" Billy Hamilton are not mentioned in the sources in this paragraph. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Added citations 20 and 22 that covers those names. Nemov (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- " and losing 100 games five times." it needs to be clarified that you are talking about losing 100 games in a season. This wasn't immediatly clear. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Nemov (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This entire sentence: "The team struggled, having only one winning season from 1900 to 1913 and losing 100 games five times. In 1907, they temporarily dropped the red color from their stockings due to infection concerns." is uncited, unless I missed something. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Added a source for the infection claim. I summarized the clunky sentence. Just stating the team struggled between those years should suffice. Nemov (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
1914: Miracle
edit- I can't access the two sources at the end of the opening sentence in the section. A google search indicats that the two claims in this sentence are accurate and I am therefore willing to assume good faith with these. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
1915–1953
edit- This header should probably be 1915–1952. I know they didn't actually move until March 1953, but the entire 1953 season was in Milwaukee and the parent header does read "Boston (1871–1952)".
- Updated. I've got a bunch of family coming in today and my time to edit will likely be limited until the 7th, but I'll do what I can. Thanks for your time. Nemov (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Take all the time you need. I'm quite liberal with how much time I'm willing to leave a review on hold for. SSSB (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Updated. I've got a bunch of family coming in today and my time to edit will likely be limited until the 7th, but I'll do what I can. Thanks for your time. Nemov (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)