Talk:Australia national baseball team/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Check.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

-- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the review.
 * 1A:
 * Changed the WBC sentance with: 'Australia has competed in both editions of the World Baseball Classic.'
 * Replaced the traditions sentance with: 'Of players born outside the United States on 2006 Major League Openning Day rosters, the Dominican Republic (85) and Venezuela (43) had the more than all other countries and between them accounted for more than 57% of foreign-born players in the leagues.' and cited a source for the statement.
 * Check.
 * 1B:
 * Removed 'currently' and 'recently' from lead
 * Added '2009' to the date in Current roster
 * 'Assistant Coach' - I checked WP:MOS, and from what I can work out, because its the title for those people it should be capitalised, whereas if there was a statement along the lines of "Past assistant coaches have included..." would be where it shouldn't be capitalised.
 * Abbreviations - WP:MOS says that the "International Baseball Federation (IBAF)" part should be at the first instance in the article, then the abbreviation itself used in the rest of the article. The IBAF and WBC abbreviations are both used in the second paragraph of the lead, so that would seem to be correct.
 * Double-linking - removed the stated double-linking
 * Check.
 * 2A:
 * SMH ref updated
 * 39, 46 & 47 added publisher. (Now moved to 40, 47 & 48)
 * Check.
 * 2B:
 * Major world championships - added a source for each of the two statements
 * World Baseball Classic - added source for second paragraph
 * I'm not aware of a single source that backs up the assertion of the paragraph highlighted in the Olympic Games section. I could probably track down sources for the individual elements. Does something along the lines of One source states "A causes B". Another states "B causes C". Logically A causes C, but there's no source available to confirm it. count as original research? Should I actually remove that paragraph?
 * I've removed that paragraph. There wasn't really a source to back it up, and it really a piece of trivial information that'd appear in a sidebar box in a book. If I stumble accross a source for it I might put it back in, but I'm not expecting to.  Afaber012  (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorted out refs for Minor world championships, Continental tournaments & Asian Baseball Championship
 * Check.
 * 4:
 * Removed statement from World ranking section
 * In the World Baseball Classic section, I'm not exactly sure how the statement you've highlighted is POV. International baseball tournaments and competitions rarely have active Major Leaguers. The following sentance in that section explains why its unusual. I'm open to suggestions. I think its something that's applicable, and so something along the lines of what's there should be there.
 * I've now got a source that backs up this paragraph. I'd've thought if it was POV that at least having a source limits it.  Afaber012  (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added source for 2006 section's underdog statement
 * Check.
 * I'm going to get to the other bits over the next couple of days, possibly even just later today (its about 11:30am as I write this here). I've had a quick look through the comments and they all seem reasonable, though I might want to discuss a couple of them.  Afaber012  (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When you get all the concerns, please let me know. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got those last couple of things sorted out now, so should be all good now.  Afaber012  (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the review, just doing my job. I would like to thank Afaber for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)