Talk:Barry Zito/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sportsguy17 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I will review this article. I'm available for the next 3 days. I'm excited to get to work with you. Disclaimer: I am participating in WikiCup, but I am not "in it to win it", I'm in it for fun. With that in mind, I'll be reviewing it. For starters, Reflinks looks good. Checklinks looks a little sketchy, so I'll be checking references to make sure they all work. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Section by Section
[edit]- Lead
- You may want to change in the third paragraph In October to The same October, because it could confuse some editors/readers.
- I think that the mentioning of Strikeouts For Troops is awkward on its own. Try combining it toward the end or at the end of the first paragraph of the lead.
This is all I have time for right now. I will finish later. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Continuing on now:
- Early Life
- In the first paragraph, please change "when he was younger" per WP:WTW. If possible, add Zito's age, or the month and year.
- In the second paragraph, his freshman statistics could use a source, perhaps Baseball-Reference.com?
- In the third paragraph, make it "He then transferred to the University of Southern California... (add a "the", since there's only one USC
- In the fourth paragraph, take out While in college per WP:WTW. Add a date or month, something else.
- Professional Career
- For the Major League Baseball Draft section, add a reference regarding the 1998 draft. Again, Baseball-Reference or MLB.com should have that (or a reference of such already exists in the article)
- For the Minor League section, we again need references (sorry, but I'm going to grill at the references) regarding his A and AA statistics, which Baseball-Reference or MLB.com should have. The rest of the section looks good.
- For 2000, reference his debut. ESPN, CBS, or another sports network will likely have released about his debut. Also reference the September 10 game. The rest of 2000 looks good.
I'll stop here for now. Ping me when you're done @Sanfranciscogiants17:. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you quite understand what I've done with the references. In all the cases you've mentioned, there is a reference that covers several sentences; I just put the reference in once at the end of the last sentence it covers. For instance, ref 9 covers the debut, refs 7 and 8 cover the 1998 draft, refs 2 and 4 cover the freshman statistics, etc. If you want me to put these references after each individual sentence, though, let me know @Sportsguy17:. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- You do not have to reference every sentence, but some of the statistics could use references. The thing is, you also need to think about it from the perspective of someone trying to research Barry Zito. If they look it up on Wikipedia and say This reference doesn't look like it covers his overall 2012 pitching record, but it does cover his 2011 record (a fictional, generic example) when it does, then less is gotten out of it. As I said, make sure you put in those ESPNs, MLB.com's and Baseball-Reference citatinos . Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good point. Changes made @Sportsguy17:. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- You do not have to reference every sentence, but some of the statistics could use references. The thing is, you also need to think about it from the perspective of someone trying to research Barry Zito. If they look it up on Wikipedia and say This reference doesn't look like it covers his overall 2012 pitching record, but it does cover his 2011 record (a fictional, generic example) when it does, then less is gotten out of it. As I said, make sure you put in those ESPNs, MLB.com's and Baseball-Reference citatinos
After a careful, sweeping review, I do not see any further outstanding issues, so see below for my review:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Pass! Good job. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)