Jump to content

Talk:Ernie Shore/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 15:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 07:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this! Arconning (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu Here are my comments! Hope they can be addressed. Arconning (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arconning, all points responded to. Thanks for the review! – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS[edit]

Lead and infobox[edit]

Early life[edit]

Baseball career[edit]

Later life[edit]

Images[edit]

  • Images have proper licenses and are relevant to the article.
  • On the third image, why is the "(right)" italicized?
    • I got in that habit long ago. MOS:CAPFRAG says in part The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text. Several discussions (e.g. this one) have failed to reach a consensus on whether "stage directions" such as (right) or (behind podium) should be in italics, set off with commas, etc. Any one article should use a consistent approach throughout. It's consistent with the other image that he shares with another person.

Refs[edit]

  • Random ref check: 1, 13, 15, 29, 46, seems good.
  • Earwig picks up nothing.

Misc[edit]

  • No ongoing edit war, pretty broad information on the topic, focused.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed