Talk:Baseball uniform/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Baseball uniform/GA1. 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:


 * Prose
 * Little League Baseball was founded by Carl Stotz in 1939 when they started to use baseball uniforms in the little leagues." - should be moved out of the lead.  Further, I am not sure the significance, and the citation does not even discussed uniforms.  Did baseball uniforms somehow assist in LL's inception or growth?
 * "In 1882, uniforms and/or stockings involved different colors that reflected the different positions, sometimes." Why sometimes?  The cite states that the rules of 1882 baseball were that players wore different colors.
 * In the "Home and road uniforms" section" Why are the Giants, Dodgers and A's uniforms discussed over others. The 1937 Brooklyn Dodgers used tan as their away uniforms."  This has its own paragraph.  Why is this notable (is this cited?)  Same question of importance with the subsequent A's paragraph. Elaborate on why these were important to the progression of baseball uniforms.  Something like . . ."the first team to wear"
 * Bill Veeck putting a team in shorts seems is relevant item I think should be included.
 * ("You can't tell the players without a scorecard!") -- is this a quote?  If so it should be cited. If not, it should be elaborated on with prose.
 * "the ritual of "retiring" a number came into fashion" Isn't this more tradition, not fashion. Also, needs a cite.
 * Should Baseball stirrups be merged into this article? At least it needs to be wiki-linked.  Further, it might be nice to mention and wiki-link to all most of the articles in Category:Baseball equipment.
 * "Players such as Manny Ramirez have taken this fashion trend to an extreme" -- POV pushing.
 * "very few major leaguers wear color-matching shoes and there are hardly any all-black shoes." - this reads like original research.


 * MOS
 * Specific
 * "They were first used in 1912 (Okkonen)." Use inline cite.  Also refer to relevant page number in the book.


 * General - These are some suggestions generated by the semi-automatic javascript program:
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]


 * Citations:
 * General:
 * Additional citations are needed. If multiple items are being cited to the same source, the refname function can be used. For example: Astros experiment, numbers on jersey,
 * The Cap styles section is 5 paragraphs, but only the first sentence is cited. Similiar


 * Specific:
 * Number(s)1, 14, 17 - Title of article should be linked
 * Number(s)11 needs author info
 * Number(s)3 - Links to "Stotz Scholarship Recipients Honored by Little League" not an article called "History of Little League Baseball." Also, if applicable please use publication date.
 * Number(s)16 - I did not see where this (commercial) site supports: "The Kansas City Athletics designed revolutionary white shoes in the 1960s"
 * Ensure that the HOF articles have the correct title. For example -
 * Number(s)4 & 5 do not meet WP:RS in my opinion.
 * Number(s)13 - CSM at high beam. Is there any way to link to the original.  This links to a stub article.
 * External links:
 * does this HOF page need to be a citation & a an external link?
 * The espn article looks like a blog (read: not WP:RS), does it add anything to the article?


 * Stable:
 * No edit wars, but this article was nominated for GA on May 24. Peer reviewed on May 25. And on June 9th a large deletion of content due to Copyright infringement was performed.  Does not give me confidence that this was a well thought out progression.  Also, due to the removal of content on June 9, the article submitted to GA and the one I am reviewing are different ones.


 * Broad/Focused?
 * I agree with Peer review/Baseball uniform/archive1, that a section devoted to the marketing and economics (commericial growth) of baseball uniforms should be added.

Any questions, I will be happy to help. Thanks.

Oh, now that I look at it again - the GA request was never completed on the talk page. Maybe editors did not realize that a review was requested. I will continue to leave this review anyway. Mitico (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wish I had seen these conversations before I began my review.(User talk:RyRy5/Archive 12&User talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan/Archive3) I should have been more observant.  Nonetheless, as observed in these discussions, this page is not ready for GA yet.   Mitico (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it isn't ready for review. I don't know how the nomination was added back, but I appreciate the review, it could really help. Sorry for that... -- RyRy  ( talk ) 04:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)