From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Staxringold talk contribs 15:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Just some assorted prose notes:
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. 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):
    I'm not in love with the source information for the lead image. I have a hard time believing the newspaper doesn't claim copyright over it's images, but as it's offline I have to AGF. Staxringold talk contribs 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Very good, just some prose clean-up really necessary. Staxringold talk contribs 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Done except for the salary note (going to double check that those figures are correct. They probably are but since that's a new development for B-R I want to make sure) and the minor league referencing. Those seem to fall under the two general references in that section. If you disagree and still think they should be added I'll go ahead and do that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Staxringold talk contribs 15:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Just some assorted prose notes:
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. 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):
    I'm not in love with the source information for the lead image. I have a hard time believing the newspaper doesn't claim copyright over it's images, but as it's offline I have to AGF. Staxringold talk contribs 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Very good, just some prose clean-up really necessary. Staxringold talk contribs 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Done except for the salary note (going to double check that those figures are correct. They probably are but since that's a new development for B-R I want to make sure) and the minor league referencing. Those seem to fall under the two general references in that section. If you disagree and still think they should be added I'll go ahead and do that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook