Talk:Jiggs Parrott/GA1

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

Reviewer: Albacore (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments
✅ ✅ ✅ One already did. ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Although the majoirty of his career was spent in the major leagues, Parrott also played in minor league baseball as well. rm as well, sounds redundant.
 * Some of the references define English as the language. Cite web states do not specify "English" as this is the default, so these should be removed.
 * Reference 12 and 13 the brackets should be removed.
 * The two photos could use alternate text
 * For the subscription required references, follow the instructions at subscription required
 * At the start of the 1982 season 1892, right?

Thanks. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Requested second opinion.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 29 citations are to the SABR reference, and every sentence in the "Early life" section is supported by that reference. Cut back on citations in first section.
 * 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):
 * Photos could use a more specific source (i.e books or URLs) rather than just "Chicago Colts" or "Parrott Family".
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Photos could use a more specific source (i.e books or URLs) rather than just "Chicago Colts" or "Parrott Family".
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

If the source is reliable, what is the problem? Furthermore, I feel that your issue with the images in a bit picky. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:WIAGA: "(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research." and, "(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." I have provided all that is required and I contest your failure of point six. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and requested a second opinion on the article even though I am the nominator. It seemed that the reviewer requested it here but failed to add it to the GA banner of the article's talk page. Again, I thank for their review. I just think it would be better to have a user more knowledgeable in the GA process give it a second review. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Albacore left a message on my user talk page and requested for a 2nd opinion on this GA review. I don't mind doing it but currently there is an ArbCom case going on (which I am uninvolved) which could put me in an awkward position if I take up this 2nd opinion review. I'll rather sit around and wait for that ArbCom case's to finish before making a final decision on whether to review this article or not. Please consider this review as "on hold". OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion
OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ideally, there should be url accompanying all of the references. However, given that this person was long before the internet was invented, I will assume good faith and assume that those statements are attributed and referenced properly by those sources.
 * 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):
 * Since the first review, photos are now reduced to two and both have entered public domain.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Since the first review, photos are now reduced to two and both have entered public domain.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: