Talk:Doc Adams/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I will start this review soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Very nice, interesting article. Looks good, just a few comments:

• A letter by Nancy Adams, the sister of Doc Adams, written in 1832 or 1833 indicates that by this time he had begun playing with "bats and balls", asking where they were. - what does this mean "where they were"?

• "According to Adams, he often attempted to compel the club's members to attend the sessions." - does this mean the New York Base Ball Club members? Or, I guess, the Knickerbockers?

• At some point, other teams must have formed, so that by 1859 there was a National Association? Maybe you should mention the formation of more teams. (If they played at Yale, they must have played at other colleges too?)

• "The other committee member was Duncan F. Curry" - so there was only one person on the committee until Adams was placed on it?

• "Adams continued to maintain his medical practice during his baseball career," - needs to be mentioned earlier, instead under "Later life" - as he did this as a player also?

• "by the time conventions led by Adams had enacted those rules" - I believe only one convention is mentioned - actually another is also - but apparently there were several conventions? Or regular conventions?

• This guy deserves more recognition! Interesting to read how baseball developed!

MathewTownsend (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• • It meant where the items were in the family's home. That's now clarified.
  • He was compelling the Knickerbockers, which is also clarified.
  • Added a couple sentences in the executive section about the increase in the number of clubs, in places where the information fits well.
  • No, it was a two-man committee and the person originally paired with Curry dropped out. That's a little more clear now, and I added the other man's name. That always helps.
  • I added a brief mention of his continued medical work in the executive section, but it's hard to find a natural place for it since the sources don't make a big deal about it. I think it's amazing that he was able to juggle everything, but if the sources don't go into that much I don't want to overdo it in the article.
  • The formation of the NAABP was at a convention, which is now mentioned. I believe they had annual conventions, but the later ones aren't too relevant for this article, in my view.
  • Thanks for the review, and thanks for looking at the article so quickly after it was nominated! Giants2008 (Talk) 16:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

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

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! Nice work. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)