Talk:Moses Fleetwood Walker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 15:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an important man - I'll take on a Review for its possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2017 (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:

   @TheGracefulSlick: In my opinion the first sentence in the Legacy section needs to be adjusted and also referenced:

   Although Jackie Robinson is commonly miscredited with being the first African-American to play organized baseball, Walker held the honor among baseball aficionados for decades

   It is my understanding that Robinson is not "credited with being the first African-American to play organized baseball" " he is the first African-American credited with being the first to play major-league baseball. The Negro Leagues were organized baseball, but they were considered minor-league weren't they? Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

   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?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   None of the refs contain a date. For instance if the refs are from a published book source the year needs to be used, if they are from a newspaper the newspaper's date needs to be filled-out etc. Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Baseballlibrary.com ref has gone dead. Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   There is a large are of commonality with sabr.org/bioproj/person/9fc5f867. This seems to be mostly because of the quotes the two articles in common, which the WP-article clearly sets out. I think some of the quotes, however, if they are more than a sentence long could possibly be set-out as a block quote or indented - the nominator could try this out in a Preview setting to see if they are comfortable with the results. Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   In my opinion this is not a concern. There are only so many ways one can say "The sky is blue."Shearonink (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable - no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Good job on the images. All the permissions are filled-out. Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Nicely-done, I really like the image that was found for the infobox. Is it from a tobacco or baseball card? Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Comment - Thank you Shearonink for picking this up so soon. I'll get to work on making adjustments. Allow me to explain the first sentence in the legacy section: William Edward White was the first major league black baseball player, Walker the first openly black major leaguer (White passed as a white man), and Jackie was the first to break the color line drawn on baseball since the 1890s. Here is a quote from the White SABR article: "An answer commonly given to the question of who was the first black man to play major-league baseball is still Jackie Robinson in 1947. Knowledgeable baseball people know that Robinson was preceded by the Walker brothers, Moses and Weldy, for Toledo in 1884". This is why I pointed out there is some confusion.

Glad you like the image, according to his biography, it is a close-up from a team photo with the Toledo Blue Stockings in 1883.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

PS - I added years to all the online sources that provided them, but some did not. All the book sources also have their year of publication as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

All the issues I have raised in the course of my Review have been sufficiently adjusted/corrected. Good job & congrats - it's a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a large point many are missing here.... "Major League Baseball" was not trademarked until 1901, when the already-existing National League was joined by the newly-formed American League. SABR (the Society for American Baseball Research) has confirmed this fact and has taken to calling baseball before the 1901 season as "professional baseball". Therefore, while White or the Walker brothers did, indeed, precede Jackie Robinson into professional baseball, they did NOT precede him in MLB. The ban that was imposed by the owners in 1884 was continued when MLB was trademarked. That ban was the barrier that Robinson broke. It also means that Robinson was also truly MLB's first Black player. 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:F9DA:F520:2565:C7C7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)