Talk:Hitting for the cycle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
"Multiple cycles" and "Natural cycles" is used twice as a heading
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and automatic edit summaries can be ambiguous."
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:
Ref 25 is dead http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/15/2409511/giants-3b-sandoval-hits-for-cycle.htm

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Just a few nit picks. Otherwise, a fine article. Will put on hold for seven days. I've made a few edits that you are free to revert if they are unsatisfactory.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I removed the dead link, as it duplicated content from ref 24. The section headings have been made more specific. — KV5 • Talk • 20:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - All problems fixed. Article passed the GA review. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]