Login
Login

Talk:Charlie Gehringer/GA1

GA review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Charlie Gehringer/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlie Gehringer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Cbl62}} 23:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

{{ping|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)

: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)

:: 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)

:::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)

:::: 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)

:::::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)

class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
style="vertical-align:top;"

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|?|

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|h|

}}

  • 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?
style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

{{GATable/item|2a|?|

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|n|

}}

  • 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.

{{GATable/item|2c|h|

}}

  • 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.

{{GATable/item|2d|h|

}}

  • Earwig finds [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1290528821&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaulkingart.com%2Fproduct%2Fcharles-gehringer-caricature%2F 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.
style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|?|

}}

{{GATable/item|3b|?|

}}

{{GATable/item|4|?|

}}

{{GATable/item|5|?|

}}

style="vertical-align:top;"

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|h|

}}

  • 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!

{{GATable/item|6b|?|

}}

{{GATable/item|7||

}}