Talk:Charlie Gehringer/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Cbl62 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC) @Cbl62: before I move on to prose and other issues, please look over and respond to the sourcing and image issues below. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to nominator non-response, I'm going to close this review tomorrow unless I've heard from @Cbl62 by then. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a three-day time limit on responding. Your review raised a number of issues that will take time to review and address. I am not able to do all of this by tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any strict time limit, but I began the review 5 days ago, pinged you 3 days ago, came to your talk page to notify you as well, and finally sent this courtesy ping tonight. If you were generally inactive, it wouldn't be a problem to wait longer, but you have been very active and working on other pages during that time frame, so I assumed you were uninterested in the review. In any case, now you're here, I'm happy to put the review on hold if you need time to work on these issues - would two weeks be sufficient? —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the ping three days ago, but have been busy with a major project for the past few weeks. I'll turn my attention to "The Mechanical Man" soon, probably later in the week. Gehringer is one of the all-time greats (and the cousin of the doc who delivered me 62 years ago) and really deserves a GA. But I can see from your initial comments it's going to require some substantial work. Thanks for the input and for your patience. Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on hold for now - just ping me when you've covered the comments below and I'll take another look. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm surprised the Skipper book isn't used as a source for the article, instead being relegated to external links. Isn't it possible there's useful info in there not covered elsewhere?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	There are a number of unreferenced passages all over the article, from sentences to full paragraphs. I can list them below if requested, but I recommend using User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages to highlight and address them. Is Fowlervillehistory.org a reliable source? It strikes me as a well-made hobbyist site. Is BaseballLibrary.com a reliable source? Seems like it rehosts content from other sources. Please add an ISBN and other details to the Connor source. What suggests that baseballbiography.com is a reliable source? Answers.com is not a reliable source. Thebaseballpage.com no longer appears to be extant and is now thisdayinbaseball.com - not sure it's reliable. Source #45, "Cobb Would Have Caught It" is rehosted from a book, we should cite the original source. Vintagedetroit.com also appears to be unreliable, but it may be rehosting writing from Bak originally published elsewhere. Inconsistent between "The Detroit Free Press" and "Detroit Free Press" - please go through and standardize.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Citing historic newspaper ads to talk about business relationships strikes me as crossing the OR line. If it wasn't mentioned in secondary sources, it's probably not significant enough for inclusion.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds this, which appears to be a copyvio at first glance. However, I suspect that the website is copying from Wiki, not the other way around. Can you confirm this? Hold for manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I would be surprised if an Associated Press wire photo had been published without a copyright. The auction site appears to no longer exist. Can you demonstrate that this is a public domain image? Similarly, it would be good to get more info on File:Charlie Gehringer.jpg and why it is clear it was published without a copyright notice. Thanks!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.