Talk:Jiggs Parrott/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Albacore (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Although the majoirty of his career was spent in the major leagues, Parrott also played in minor league baseball as well. rm as well, sounds redundant.

 Done

• Some of the references define English as the language. {{Cite web}} states do not specify "English" as this is the default, so these should be removed.

 Done

• Reference 12 and 13 the brackets should be removed.

 Done

• The two photos could use alternate text

One already did.  Done

• For the subscription required references, follow the instructions at {{subscription required}}

 Done

• At the start of the 1982 season 1892, right?

 Done

Thanks. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Requested second opinion.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   29 citations are to the SABR reference, and every sentence in the "Early life" section is supported by that reference. Cut back on citations in first section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Photos could use a more specific source (i.e books or URLs) rather than just "Chicago Colts" or "Parrott Family".

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

If the source is reliable, what is the problem? Furthermore, I feel that your issue with the images in a bit picky. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:WIAGA: "(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research." and, "(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." I have provided all that is required and I contest your failure of point six. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested a second opinion on the article even though I am the nominator. It seemed that the reviewer requested it here but failed to add it to the GA banner of the article's talk page. Again, I thank Albacore (talk · contribs) for their review. I just think it would be better to have a user more knowledgeable in the GA process give it a second review. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Albacore left a message on my user talk page and requested for a 2nd opinion on this GA review. I don't mind doing it but currently there is an ArbCom case going on (which I am uninvolved) which could put me in an awkward position if I take up this 2nd opinion review. I'll rather sit around and wait for that ArbCom case's to finish before making a final decision on whether to review this article or not. Please consider this review as "on hold". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ideally, there should be url accompanying all of the references. However, given that this person was long before the internet was invented, I will assume good faith and assume that those statements are attributed and referenced properly by those sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Since the first review, photos are now reduced to two and both have entered public domain.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.