Alan Wiggins has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alan Wiggins article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this article within a few days.
Wizardman 03:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The prose review should be done tomorrow. On the reference front, the only question mark I had was on the baseball library ref (#22). I'm not really sure it's reliable (and usually their bios are only a couple sentences anyway). I know they have a collection of people that manage it so maybe it's a case-by-case basis, which I can't determine right now because the site's down. In any event, I'd prefer it be replaced, though it's not necessarily a deal breaker. Wizardman 03:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's the issues I found in the prose so far, only partway through the article:
Wizardman 03:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Going to withdraw my review, actually; taking a wikibreak. If it hasn't been picked back up should I return then I'll resume it. Wizardman 03:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bagumba ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | OK— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Citations needed
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | OK— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
|
I've jut started going through the article, and placed my initial comments above. Starting with just general flow, without looking at sources, will add more as I continue.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed the first round mention from the lead. I appreciate your work on this. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Great job with the updates. After all the changes, I'll go through another read of the entire article before finalizing the review. Any relatively simple issues I'll just copyedit the article directly, which you can feel free to discuss if there is disagreement.— Bagumba ( talk) 17:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Alan Wiggins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.si.com/vault/1985/05/20/638158/mlbWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Alan Wiggins has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alan Wiggins article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wizardman ( talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this article within a few days.
Wizardman 03:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The prose review should be done tomorrow. On the reference front, the only question mark I had was on the baseball library ref (#22). I'm not really sure it's reliable (and usually their bios are only a couple sentences anyway). I know they have a collection of people that manage it so maybe it's a case-by-case basis, which I can't determine right now because the site's down. In any event, I'd prefer it be replaced, though it's not necessarily a deal breaker. Wizardman 03:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's the issues I found in the prose so far, only partway through the article:
Wizardman 03:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Going to withdraw my review, actually; taking a wikibreak. If it hasn't been picked back up should I return then I'll resume it. Wizardman 03:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bagumba ( talk · contribs) 03:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | OK— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Citations needed
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | OK— Bagumba ( talk) 03:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
|
I've jut started going through the article, and placed my initial comments above. Starting with just general flow, without looking at sources, will add more as I continue.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed the first round mention from the lead. I appreciate your work on this. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Great job with the updates. After all the changes, I'll go through another read of the entire article before finalizing the review. Any relatively simple issues I'll just copyedit the article directly, which you can feel free to discuss if there is disagreement.— Bagumba ( talk) 17:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Alan Wiggins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.si.com/vault/1985/05/20/638158/mlbWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)