Talk:2004 World Series/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Comments
 * You have a lot of odd commas throughout the article. I changed most of these, but please double check for any I may have missed.
 * There is a lot of use of the word "help" or "helped", especially in the Cardinals section. Try to mix up descriptors to avoid such overuse.
 * Avoid "noun-plusing" phrasing as it mixes future and past tense unecessarily. i.e.: "The Red Sox would eventually win the game..." It should simply be "The Red Sox eventually won the game..."  There are several instances of this throughout the article.
 * "They swept the series largely thanks to a seven-run fourth inning in Game 1." Nonsensical.  I've never heard of one inning of one game leading to a series sweep.  On the following sentence, referencing Guerrero's 9th inning Grand Slam, I think it would help to explain that Anaheim entered the 9th trailing by four.  It would help display the dramatic nature of both the Angels' comeback, and the Red Sox victory.  Also, did the Sox win in the bottom of the ninth, or in extra innings?
 * Not sure what you mean by "It would help display the dramatic nature of both the Angels' comeback, and the Red Sox victory." If you mean more detail, well don't forget this article is about the World Series not the division round, so I really don't want to go into too much detail. BUC (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The caption on the Pujols picture lacks context. Perhaps it could be changed to reference something he did during the World Series?  Perhaps mention what his average was, or if he hit any home runs, etc?   Also, is there no picture of a Red Sox player that could be used in their section?
 * I doesn't make sense to mention what he did in the World Series when the image is in the section about the Cardinals route to the series, I will change it though. I think there are enough Red Sox images in the article already. BUC (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Astros tied Game 6 in the ninth inning." A statement without context. What is notable about the Astros tying the game in the 9th?
 * Hyphens should not be used for scores. i.e. 4-2 should be 4–2, using an endash.
 * Publications should be italicized. These include USA Today, ESPN the Magazine, and other newspapers.  You can fix this by using the work= paramter in the cite x templates rather than publisher= for these entries. Conversely, ESPN, MLB.com, etc should not be italicized, but are.  Looks like two distinct citation styles were used, and should be standardized.

Overall, an excellent job has been done of telling the story of the series. I am actually amazed at the number of subplots to this series that I had forgotten over time. The article was able to evoke the memories I had of this series. For the most part, my issues are confined to some limited MOS issues and only a couple statements that left me confused.

I have placed this nomination on hold, as I feel you should not have any undue problems addressing these concerns. I have watchlisted the article and this page, but feel free to ping me on my talk page when you are ready for a second look. Good Luck! Resolute 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Think I've done everything. BUC (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And so you have. Well done on the article! Resolute 22:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)