Talk:Hitting for the cycle/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be starting this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (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, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * "Multiple cycles" and "Natural cycles" is used twice as a heading
 * From Manual of Style: "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous."
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * Ref 25 is dead http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/15/2409511/giants-3b-sandoval-hits-for-cycle.htm
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * 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:
 * Just a few nit picks. Otherwise, a fine article. Will put on hold for seven days. I've made a few edits that you are free to revert if they are unsatisfactory. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Just a few nit picks. Otherwise, a fine article. Will put on hold for seven days. I've made a few edits that you are free to revert if they are unsatisfactory. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few nit picks. Otherwise, a fine article. Will put on hold for seven days. I've made a few edits that you are free to revert if they are unsatisfactory. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a few nit picks. Otherwise, a fine article. Will put on hold for seven days. I've made a few edits that you are free to revert if they are unsatisfactory. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a few nit picks. Otherwise, a fine article. Will put on hold for seven days. I've made a few edits that you are free to revert if they are unsatisfactory. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the dead link, as it duplicated content from ref 24. The section headings have been made more specific. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  20:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All problems fixed. Article passed the GA review. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)