Talk:Pepper Martin/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:41, 27 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:
 * Repetitious wording. e.g. three out of four paragraphs in "Early career" start with "Martin".✅
 * Unencyclopedic wording: e.g. "Martin didn't appear" - should be "did not".✅
 * Too many short paragraphs which makes the article choppy. This is especially apparent in "The Gashouse Gang" section.
 * In "Early career", "Martin made his major league debut with the Cardinals" - Cardinals should be linked and spelled out fully at first mention in the body of the article, as should all terms.✅
 * "He posted a .308 batting average in 39 games as a utility player, as the Cardinals won the National League pennant." - two "as"s in the same sentence and another "as" in the next - needs rewording to avoid repetitiousness.✅
 * Link Cincinnati Reds, National League, Athletics✅
 * "when the ball was bobbled in the outfield" - can "bobbled in" be linked or explained?✅
 * "Cardinals' victory over Grove" - is this usual to consider the win to be over a player instead of the team?
 * "he made an impressive catch to squelch" - is "squelch" too informal for an encyclopedia article?✅
 * These are example. Please go through the article to check for prose issues
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lede doesn't summarize the article. e.g. "The Gashouse Gang" is a long section but is not mentioned in the lede.✅
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * Ref 4 is a dead link http://www.jimthorpeassoc.org/Articles/Pepper%20Martin.html ✅
 * 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:
 * This is a nice, informative article. With some fixes, it should be ready to go. Placed on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More comments
 * In "Early years", three out of four paragraphs start with "Martin". It could be condensed to three paragraphs by clumping similar topics together.
 * Choppy - especially in "The Gashouse Gang' - way too many paragraphs. Work on building paragraphs so that the prose flows.
 * "Early career" followed by "World Series star" are a series of paragraphs all about the same size. No variety.
 * How did he get from the Houston Buffaloes to the Rochester Red Wings?✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is a nice, informative article. With some fixes, it should be ready to go. Placed on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More comments
 * In "Early years", three out of four paragraphs start with "Martin". It could be condensed to three paragraphs by clumping similar topics together.
 * Choppy - especially in "The Gashouse Gang' - way too many paragraphs. Work on building paragraphs so that the prose flows.
 * "Early career" followed by "World Series star" are a series of paragraphs all about the same size. No variety.
 * How did he get from the Houston Buffaloes to the Rochester Red Wings?✅
 * "Early career" followed by "World Series star" are a series of paragraphs all about the same size. No variety.
 * How did he get from the Houston Buffaloes to the Rochester Red Wings?✅

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria review
Paragraph sizing: I was trying to separate different items, such as his musical interests from his playing career. It seems that the flow might be more jarring to the reader to combine the two widely varying subjects into one paragraph. I was also trying to separate his minor league seasons from his major league seasons, as he went back and forth at the beginning of his career. I thought the initial paragraph in the World Series Section served as a lead, setting up the scene for the rest of the section. I asn't trying to make the paragraphs the same size. It just seemed to come out that way. I am open to suggestions on how to rearrange these subjects. Prose and punctuation aren't my strong suits. Wikilinks, the first mention of the National League was already bookended by two other Wikilinks, so I linked the second reference to the National League, as per Wikilink guidelines regarding too many continuous links. Cardinals victory over Grove, in baseball, the pitcher is often the focal point of the defense, especially if he is the ace of the team's pitching staff, so when an opposing team is able to defeat a team's best pitcher, this is often of particular note in the sporting press. However, if you believe this isn't apparent to the casual, non-sporting reader, I can change it.Orsoni (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I combined some paragraphs. How does it look? My only remaining question (and not a deal breaker) is the heading "The Gashouse Gang", since most of the section deals with his "Later career" and not his antics as a member of the Gashouse Gang. Anyway, the article is a definite pass now, very good. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From reading up on the topic, it appears that Martin was the last member of the group, loosely known as the Gashouse Gang, remaining on the team. So, when he retired, it effectively marked the end of the gang. I can see how the section heading may be seen as straying from the subject at hand. I am open to other suggestions. Maybe just "Later Career."Orsoni (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Later career" would be fine. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that, yes, the paragraph breaks look good. Thanks for all your help!Orsoni (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reevaluation after fixes:


 * 1. Well written?:
 * 2. Factually accurate?:
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:
 * 4. Neutral point of view?:
 * 5. Article stability?:
 * 6. Images?:


 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)