Talk:Roger Peckinpaugh/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this shortly! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

review

I think this article is quite informative. I have only a few comments. I've made some edits that your free to revert.[1]

• The lede doesn't give him justice I don't think. For example apparently was a talented if inconsistent manager, the youngest hired by the Yankees at that time at age 23. (I'm not suggesting that you put this in the lede necessarily, as you know best, but after reading the lede I was surprised at all he achieved.)
  • Hmm. I'll give the lead some thought. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have added that he was the youngest manager to the lead. I'm not sure what else should be added there, at this point the lead seems fairly comprehensive to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• " and signed him to his first professional contract. After choosing Ray Chapman over Peckinpaugh, the Naps traded him to the Yankees in 1913." - don't understand - was his first professional contract with the Naps, who decided they preferred Chapman for for shortstop so traded him without his actually playing for them?
  • First contract was with the Naps. They also had Chapman for the same position, and decided they preferred Chapman, though Peckinpaugh did play for them. I don't think Chapman's role is important enough for the lead, so I took it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• " Out of professional baseball, Peckinpaugh joined Lew Fonseca on nationwide baseball tours, which involved the viewing of a movie and technical demonstrations." So after the 1934 session, no one hired him?
  • Yup. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Really a nice little article and great images. Everything else checks out. Will put on hold.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   pass!

• Very nice article. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)