Misplaced Pages

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Staxringold _talk 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Looks like a very good start! Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• The first "Renteria" under Cincinnati Reds needs the diacritic.
• The ESPN cite does cover his "game winning" Game 5 home run, but it bothers me. Certainly it qualifies for the Game winning RBI (as cite 121 says, listing the same group of players as the ESPN article Renteria joined with his 2nd). But you can explicitly get a GWRBI at any point in the game, even in the top of the 1st. I've always thought of a "game winning" hit as a walkoff, not a go-ahead hit in the seventh that turns out to be the victory margin. But, the cite covers it so *shrug*. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Given when the Marlins were created and that Renteria played on them I would make it clear that you're referring to the GCL Marlin's first game under "Minor leagues"
• "His average went up to .253, and his" Don't need the comma. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Needs a good look through for linking baseball terminology the first time it appears to make it more accessible to non-fans. Home run, no hitter, fielding percentage, double switch, stolen base, run scored, pinch hit, baseball positions, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Could you find more information on the injuries that led to his 96 and 98 DL stints? Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should probably mention how disappointing he was in Boston. Maybe even mention how he was part of the string of post-Nomar bad shortstops Boston's had. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• "On January 7, 2011, Renteria signed a one year contract with the Cincinnati Reds worth 2.1 million dollars plus another 0.9 million" Just use a $ sign (also for the 0.9). Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• "This marks the" Should be past tense, the signing has already happened. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• What makes "Colombia Link" a WP:RS? Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The bios for the years 2000-2002 on Colombia Link are exactly the same as the ones on MLB.com, so the earlier years were probably taken from an older version. I just used it because the MLB bio only goes back to 2000. Also, nothing on Rentería's page on this website is controversial, and everything can easily be proved. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• As an FYI his Minor League B-Ref page can replace a number of the Colombia Link citations. Also it should be used no matter what to directly cite his minor league statistics. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• You posted to my wall that this was done, but Colombia Link is still something that needs fixing. It is not an RS, as far as I can tell. It may well be just recreating information from elsewhere, but we have no way of definitively showing that. And if it's easily confirmable information why not just cite to those instead? Staxringold _talk 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not going to hold it up over this as it does a solid enough job, but the text (particularly the older years) need expansion and refinement (check Google News archives!) for more meat apart from pure stats. It's not bad but you can see some shimmers of recentism when an injured, busted, partial 2010 season and postseason has as much text as 02-03 when he was an All-Star, Gold Glove, and Silver Slugger honoree. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• His MLB page lists 3 Player of the Week awards, might be interesting to take this along with his B-Ref Game Logs to show what happened in those weeks to earn the honor. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Good. Noted that the Boston section should make clear they were displeased with the signing, but that's a small bit. Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

   Don't believe it's required, but ALT text for the images would be nice (and not hard to add). Staxringold _talk 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Looks great, thanks for the work! Passing. Staxringold _talk 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)