Talk:Bullet Rogan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good overall, I just have a couple notes:

I presume those paragraphs with only one cite cover the entire paragraph, right? (which is allowed of course) Also, those sentences that aren't cited but the next sentence is are using that cite, right? Just checking, since some may need their own cite anyway.
Mix up how the paragraphs in Professional career start. Right now most are "in 19__,..."

Only a couple things, so I'll put this on hold and pass it when it's all clarified. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I should first disclose that while I nominated this as a good article, I am not the main author. The principal author is User:Satchel; I merely noticed the quality of this article and decided to nominate it. My own contributions to this article consist of copyediting it for consistency with WP:MOS and adding the statistics tables. With respect to the citations, I've gone through the notes and checked the content and page numbers against the books that I have (Clark and Lester, Figueredo, Hogan, Holway, Riley, and Rock). I don't have Dixon, Lester 2001, Lester 2006, or McNeil, so I haven't been able to verify those citations. Most of the cases you mention where a single note comes at the end of a paragraph are citations of Dixon, so I haven't been able to check them. Although User:Satchel hasn't edited here recently, I know him from other work he's done on Negro league baseball, so I will send him an email asking him to verify the other citations.

With respect to your other comment, I've edited the text to cut back on sentences beginning "in 19__,..." BRMo (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Let me know when you get a response on the Dixon issue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard back from User:Satchel (I'm not even sure my email got through), but User:Couillaud says he has a copy of Dixon's book and is willing to check the references. (See User talk:Couillaud#Bullet Rogan article amd User talk:BRMo#Rogan article.) I suggested that it's probably not necessary to check every single reference, but that spot checking a half dozen or so should suffice to see what the citation practices were. Would you agree? BRMo (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like the best course of action. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked most of the citations from Dixon. Citation 6 covers the entire paragraph, as does citation 9. Citation 36 covers both prior sentences. It appears to be the pattern of the article. -- Couillaud (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. In that case I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]