Talk:Jimmy Lavender/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one; comments to follow in the next 1-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first pass this looks good, and I don't anticipate any serious problems for promotion. I've made some tweaks and small changes as I went; let me know if you object to any or feel free to just revert. There's also two points below I'd like your thoughts on. More checks to come later. Thanks again for this contribution-- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" In March, he signed with the Philadelphia" -- this is a bit confusing. He was traded to them but also signed with them? Perhaps I just don't know how player transactions worked in older baseball.
"After a short one-inning game" -- a one-inning outing, or was this a rainout or some such? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review so far, and I do appreciate the changes you've made. I made a couple changes myself, including the the second point you made above. On the first point, before 1975, the reserve clause was in effect, so every MLB player's right were owned by the team they played with the previous season, and the vast-majority of players only played under one-year contracts. So what was being traded was his rights, he then had to negotiate his one-year contract with the Phillies.Neonblak ^talk - 16:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for record-keeping purposes, I wasn't sure at first about Retrosheet as a reliable source, but discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_12 and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/J._R._Richard appear to have concluded that it is. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a GA action point, but you might consider just eliminating the header "in popular culture" to allow both of those short sections to become one (his name reappearing fits logically into "post-baseball life"). Technically WP:LAYOUT discourages short sections, but there aren't an excessive number here to become a problem under the GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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