Talk:Jackie Robinson Day: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:53, 8 October 2008 editLAAFan (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,049 edits Update← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:00, 8 October 2008 edit undoGimmeBot (talk \| contribs)Bots75,273 editsm Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}}Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{ArticleHistory
	{{GA\|7 October 2008 (UTC)\|topic=Baseball\|page=1}}
			\|action1=GAN
			\|action1date=00:38, 8 October 2008
			\|action1link=Talk:Jackie Robinson Day/GA1
			\|action1result=listed
			\|action1oldid=243782173
			\|currentstatus=GA
			\|topic=sports
			}}

	{{WikiProject Baseball\|class=GA\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Baseball\|class=GA\|importance=mid}}

Revision as of 04:00, 8 October 2008

Jackie Robinson Day 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Baseball GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jackie Robinson Day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be doing the GA review on this article.--LAA Fan _review 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):
The Spock reference isn't reliable.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Remove the word "historical" under the first Jackie Robinson day
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, it only needs minor fixing. If the above is answered, I'll pass it. Good luck.--LAA Fan _review 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed – Spock.com replaced with africanamericans.com, and removed "historical" in the "2004" section. – RyanCross (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories: