Talk:Dan McGann/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to tackle a few baseball articles, a lot at GAN these days. I'll review this tonight. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are my noms. No rush on them, enjoy your weekend. I was expecting them to be waiting for review for a while longer than this was. Also, if you're in the mood for similar GAN's, there's the other articles from that DYK hook. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I temporarily don't have access to my offline sources, so i might as well review since article writing's out for a couple days. Here's what I found:

"and New York Giants 1904 and " in 1904
"The Washington Senators of the NL purchased McGann, Butts Wagner, Bob McHale and Cooney Snyder from Toronto for $8,500 ($237,456 in current dollar terms) on September 22, 1897." would like this+sentence after cited. Not seeing it in the sabr ref. I presume it's b-r but i could be wrong.
"He played one year on with the Orioles," rm on
"setting a NL record" I think an NL would be right.
"McGann continued his reputation as a fighter in 1905." The article notes a lot about McGann, but being a fighter didn't seem to be one of them (at least not before this sentence). Either add something earlier in the article so that this makes sense or reword the sentence.

Not too much to fix; I'll put this on hold for five days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine except the last note now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'll look into beefing up his rep as a fighter by tomorrow. If this stands any chance as an FA (and I don't know that it does), that will need to be talked about more. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you don't have any Sporting Life refs in there. Link's on Vodello's user page, and it looks like a lot comes up. That should make it easy to expand the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see some things there, and I'll try to incorporate them. For now, I changed the wording from "continued his reputation" to "developed his reputation". That should suffice for a GA, and I can work adding more, and decide if I want to take it to FAC. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. In the meantime, the article is now a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]