Talk:Harmon Killebrew/GA1

GA Review

Greetings. I will be reviewing this article shortly to see if it fills the GA criteria. Nosleep (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MOS compliance: A few problems here, but they should be reasonably easy to fix. I think the jargon "tape measure homer" could be explained a little better, and "Killer" from the lead is said to be a portmanteau, but it's just not. A portmanteau is a mixture of two words. There's only one word listed as a source of the nickname. I'm not sure what you want to say here, so I'll refrain from changing it myself. I also think the lead is a little too long (I like to be able to see the table of contents when I open the page), but that's more of a personal preference and not really grounds to fail the article. I'm also puzzled by the subheading "World Series." The subsection documents a 4-year period in Killebrew's career, but he only played in the World Series for one of those years. I'm still not really crazy about this. I went in and took out the "World Series" heading entirely.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Very well structured

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: ~~There are two [citation needed]s even before my review begins, and I saw one other as well. This is a definite issue~~

C. No original research: ~~This'll get upgraded to a + once those [citation needed]s are taken care of (as will, of course, 2b)~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Definitely solid here

B. Focused: It diverges a little here and there, but not to a point I'd even think about failing the article for this.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: Looks to be so
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Two free use images related, if peripherally so, to the subject. Images aren't required at all for GA (not even one), so this is a definite plus
Overall:
Pass or Fail: ~~Can't pass it just yet. There are some issues to take care of. I'll come back in a week and see if they're taken care of.~~ Boy, I don't know. This is hard. I'm going to seek a second opinion.

Also, and I'm unsure where a remark like this would belong in the GA rundown, I notice User:Baseball Bugs reverted something a few weeks ago that I changed tonight, the use of "Nats" in place of "Senators" for Killebrew's first season. His edit summary said that the team was known as the "Nationals" at that point. If this is indeed true, it needs to be mentioned (and, of course, sourced) in the article. When I removed the instance of "Nats," I noted in my edit summary that neither "Nats" nor "Nationals" appear anywhere else in the article, so it is confusing to say Killebrew signed with the Senators and then a few lines later call them the Nats.

All in all, a good article. Take care of these few issues and I'd be happy to capitalize that "g." Nosleep (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed's have been dealt with. Wizardman 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the exception of the "World Series" heading, which I'm actually not sure what to change it to. Wizardman 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the comment more noticeable, I'm going to seek a second opinion at WP:GAN, because I truly can't decide. It's really close. So, I hope you don't mind staying in purgatory a bit longer :P Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

In the lead, add a comma after 1965.
In the Washington section, if dates are going to be linked, it would be best to link "June 16". Same thing for the Breakout season section.
In the Minnesota section, link "New York Yankees" once.
In the MVP and return to postseason section, this sentence ---> "1969 was also the year that the official logo of Major League Baseball was introduced", the beginning of it should be re-written. Same thing for the start of the sentence for the Decline section.
In the Post-retirement activities section, Reference 1 in paragraph 2, should come after the comma.
References 73 and 74 are missing Publisher info.
References 76 and 77 need to use the {{cite web}}.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Refs 73 and 74 have the same title and publisher, so I didn't see a need to add it in a second time. I could if needed, just seems bureaucratic. Wizardman 02:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to ThinkBlue and to editors who have worked so hard in improving this article. I have passed it by the good article criteria. If you believe this assessment to be in error, you may take it to Good article reassessment. Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]