Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jackie Robinson Day

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LAAFan (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 8 October 2008 (Update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:53, 8 October 2008 by LAAFan (talk | contribs) (Update)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articlesJackie Robinson Day has been listed as one of the 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.
Review: October 7, 2008.
WikiProject iconBaseball GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis 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.--LAAFan review 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. 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:
  3. 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):
  4. 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
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Overall, it only needs minor fixing. If the above is answered, I'll pass it. Good luck.--LAAFan 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: