Talk:Bake McBride/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it! No hurry at all. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "He was the 1974 National League Rookie of the Year, and he was a 1976 MLB All-Star Game selection" - might sound better as He was the 1974 National League Rookie of the Year, and was also a 1976 MLB All-Star Game selection

   "He was a member of the world champion 1980 Phillies team, and he hit a three-run home run in the first game of that year's World Series" - slight repetition of 'he'. How about He was a member of the world champion 1980 Phillies team, and hit a three-run home run in the first game of that year's World Series

   "McBride began the year as the starting right fielder for the Indians, but he suffered an eye infection and did not play after May 21" - which year are we talking about? 1982?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

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:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent job with this, I don't see any reason to put this on hold so I'll pass it now as it meets the criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and all of the sources check out. The points I listed above are very minor and can be ignored! JAGUAR  16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)