Talk:Spider Clark/GA1

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

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best! jp×g 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary notes
This is an extremely short article, but this is to be expected given that he was a baseball player who lived from 1867 to 1892. Some may argue that this makes him non-notable, but being in MLB means he passes WP:NBASEBALL without question. There seems to be more than enough material available about the guy to write an article about him as well, so there are no issues there either.

For this review, I will use the following three icons:
 * ✅: Good, no further action needed.
 * : Not a show-stopper, but should be addressed.
 * : Needs to be fixed before I can pass.

Copyvio

 * ✅ Earwig's detector gives back a whopping zero point zero. I did not notice any close paraphrasing from the sources I verified in the process of writing this review, either. On this basis, I'm going to go ahead and say there is no copyright violation here.

Stability

 * ✅ Article was stable as a stub for a great number of years, and continues to be stable after its expansion. I cannot imagine someone getting mad about this article, and indeed, nobody has.

POV

 * ✅ The article, at no point, takes anything resembling an ideological stance, promotional tone, or the like.

Media

 * ✅ The only illustration is a baseball card from 1887. No copyright oopsie woopsies here, and no possibility for any to arise at any point.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

 * ✅ Seems to be a pretty comprehensive summary of what the guy did as a baseball player, how he played, and the unfortunate circumstances of his death. There isn't a whole lot more that could be written about in the scope of this article, and indeed, it does not go far afield of that scope.

Prose / MoS

 * ✅ Well-written, professional and encyclopedic. Easily understood prose, laid out in sections that follow a logical sequence.
 * ✅ The lead gives a good and succinct overview of the contents of the article. All of the stuff in the lead is mentioned in the article.

Ref check

 * ✅ Everything in the body of the article is paired with an inline citation.
 * ✅ There are only 6 references, but this seems fine to me, since there is not a whole lot of article to be cited in the first place.
 * ✅ Ref 1, baseball-reference.com, seems to be a pretty reliable website. The statistics from there are represented accurately.
 * ✅ Ref 2 doesn't have the pages referenced available on Google Books, but I was able to come up with an insanely stupid workaround and verify it anyway.
 * ✅ I noticed that some of the articles in Sporting Life are cited to Ref 2 (Cooperstown Chronicles) instead of to the Sporting Life issues they were from. Would it not be possible to find refs for those?
 * I found a site here that's got some old issues of it available, and added the refs, which are now Refs 3 and 6.


 * ✅ Ref 4 checks out.
 * ✅ Ref 5 checks out.

Conclusion
Aside from a paucity of references (to which I was able to add 2), I could not find any problem whatsoever with this article. The prose is well-written, the scope and coverage are both appropriate, the references are all to reliable sources, and all of the text in the article is appropriately cited. There is one illustration, which is topical and freely licensed. I'm stoked to pass this! jp×g 00:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Passed. I see that you didn't submit this article to DYK to be on the Main Page when you initially did the expansion (although it was a 10x expansion and it would have been eligible). Fortunately, articles are eligible to be submitted for DYK for seven days after they're passed as GAs, so I'd recommend you do that. Happy editing! jp×g 00:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)