Talk:Cleveland Guardians/GA1

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

The article as first glance looks like one to review, so I'll start with a linkcheck. The following refs/links need fixing:
 * Ref #2 (retrosheet) doesn't work.
 * Ref #35 (jewish sports) is dead.
 * Ref #50 (uh.edu) is dead.
 * Ref #57 (winnipeg) doesn't work.
 * Ref #64 (espn ten years) doesn't work.
 * Ref #66 (espn vizquel-mesa) doesn't work.
 * Ref #55 has a 500 error, but I think it's on baseballlibrary's end, we'll take a look at that one later to make sure.
 * Furthermore, make sure all refs are properly formatted. Upon completion of this, I'll do a full review.


 * All of the above refs should be repaired or replaced with fundtional ones. I also went through and formatted some refs with "bot generated titles".  I hope everything works now.  Appreciate anything you can offer.

TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, that's good. Task #2: Reduce the sizes of File:ALC-CLE-Insignia.png and File:Indian uprising.jpg in accordance with fair use guidelines. (I have a busy day today, so it's only a small task, but at least the images will be dealt with.) Wizardman  18:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to say its done. I shrank the images and replaced them in the article.  You'll have to fogive me if its not entirely correct.  10,000+ edits and these are the first two images I have ever uploaded.  Please let me know if anything was wrong.  Thanks.TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  03:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They look good now. Fair use reduction isn't done too frequently, though I'm trying to push it more in my reviews. Wizardman  06:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna call off the review from my end, unfortunately I don't have the time to carefully read through this. I'll let someone else tackle it. Wizardman  05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. I appreciate the help you have offered.  TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New Review
Adding on to what Wizardman said, I have reviewed this article further, based on the GA criteria.

1. Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The main flaw of this article is its grammar and cohesiveness, starting with the first sentence of the body. Open professional baseball began in Cleveland during the 1869 season and one team was hired on salary for 1870, as in several other cities following the success of the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, the first fully professional team. This sentence is supposed to introduce their history, and it sounds very awkward. Almost every section in this article has sentences like that, and I recommend a copy edit of the entire article.
 * Another example: Cleveland went without major league ball for only two seasons, joining the American Association in 1887, after that league's Allegheny club had jumped to the N.L. Cleveland followed suit in 1889, as the Association began to crumble. Something like this should be communicated in two sentences.
 * Another example: Cleveland entered 1941 with a young team and a new manager; Roger Peckinpaugh had replaced the despised Vitt; but the team regressed, finishing in fourth. Why does this sentence have two semi-colons?
 * Another example: A sentence like 2001 saw a return to the playoffs starts off a paragraph. Too many sentences start with a year, and that should be fixed.


 * There are simply too many examples for me to put up here, as stated earlier.


 * B. Manual of Style:
 * Every subsection, with the exception of "The curse of Rocky Colavito", seems unnecessary. In addition to this, "1960–1993: The 30-year slump" highlights a 33-year period, and does not match the title. Other points:
 * There are a lot of small paragraphs that can be combined in the 1901–1946 and 1960–1993 sections.
 * The lead is choppy, and includes details that should only be in the body. While the nickname of a professional franchise is important, it should not take up an entire paragraph of the lead. I'm not sure if the most recent postseason visit is important either...saying that they have the most division titles is enough.
 * There are several odd phrases in the article, like "to a boil" and "a middling team". This jargon should be kept to a minimum.
 * References should always come after punctuation, and not in the middle of a sentence.
 * Some years are linked, some years aren't. This needs to be consistent.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * The references are one of the stronger parts of this article. You can tell that a lot of work went into them.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * The article focuses too much on the recent years of the team. The years 2000 and on need to be more concise and compact.

4. Is it neutral?

5. Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * This is another weak part of the article. The only players seen are either on a magazine cover or a baseball card. No pictures of Manny Ramirez or Jim Thome? At least one of Bob Feller would be nice.

Overall this article has a lot of potential, but it needs a huge copy edit to fix the grammar and prose. The style of the article (like the organization of the sections) also needs to be fixed. If I thought that this could be done within several days, or even a week, then I would put this review on hold. But at this point, too much work needs to be done on it, so I'm going to have to fail it. The content is very good though - if organized properly, I could definitely see this article being FA-status someday. --Sportskido8 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with some of the above ratings (but agree with both reviewers in that this article fails GA criteria. I consider the references to be a weak spot. "Baseball-Reference" is listed as the "work" in some refs, other times it's missing. "The New York Times" and "New York Times" appear, and in addition, sometimes the newspaper is linkable and other times it's not. Some (#57) don't contain the source, while others have an ambiguous source (#87 states simply "Cleveland Indians"). Some are just bare URLs (#92-93) while #2 references a WP article (the Indians article!). #31 is not a reliable source. Neutrality is not a strength of this article either. Several peacock terms were found ("famous," "could still pitch," "dominating", "best season"). Zepppep (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)