Talk:Michael Wacha

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michael Wacha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Like every other Cards fan, I've got a mounting obsession with all things Wacha. I'll be glad to take this one, though we'll need to wait to close the review until his Game 6 World Series start is on the books and the article updated accordingly. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also here to help if needed. And hoping Wacha has a star performance in Game 6 (Yankees fan, hate the Red Sox). – Muboshgu (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He absolutely could. Wacha might have to throw a no-hitter to win, but here's hoping the Birds on the Blade get their mojo back before Boston gets the chance to wrap it up. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully expect this article to catch fire the next few days after Wacha pitches back-to-back no-hitters for Games 6 and 7. (I almost wrote perfect games, but why be greedy?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't get the title, but Cards still have a great future, and part of that runs through Wacha. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's a few initial comments before this gets hit by 20,000 readers tonight. Thanks again for the work on this one. My first impression is that this is well-written, well-sourced, and getting close to promotion. I do have a few concerns below that I'd like your thoughts on first, though; let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• "In his junior session," -- is season meant here? It's a bit confusing that the senior season appears to precede the junior season, and I'd suggest putting it in chronological order instead.
  • Changed "session" to "season." Now in chronological order. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• I like that you have the Yadi quotation set aside in the box--definitely the moment the Wacha legend began
  • Absolutely was definitive. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Some sections seem like longer but superficial rewriting of the sources, raising close paraphrasing concerns.
  • Took careful note and rearranged. See below. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For example, compare: "However, the main criticism was of a heavy reliance on the fastball due to the lack of a solid breaking pitch and that development of a slider – even as only an occasional "show-me" pitch – would allow him more definition in his pitch sequencing as he battles through opposing lineups.[33] During each at-bat, Wacha does not easily give the batter the pitch he is looking for. He has a marked ability to show little emotion and stay calm on the mound. With two plus-pitches and improved command, some reports project his best chance is to be a solid number-three starter."

Source: "Development of SL to even a “show-me” pitch would add another element to his game and allow him to become more refined in his pitch sequencing ability to work through a lineup. Works hard during his starts, doesn’t get rattled and shows little emotion on the mound. With two plus pitches and command, chance to be a solid number three starter. "

• Compacted, quoted, and directly attributed. Mild expansion in the pitching profile section to round/smooth out. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph relying on http://www.aggieathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27300&ATCLID=205236572 also mirrors it quite closely, even putting the information in the same unusual order (reverse chronological). I don't think this problem is serious enough to quickfail the article for (and I should hasten to say there's obviously no bad intent here), but I think at least these two sections could be rewritten to less closely mimic the sources in structure and specific language. Alternatively, if the BP scouting report was more explicitly attributed in-text, close paraphrasing wouldn't be an issue. You can see WP:PARAPHRASE for details and suggestions about this.

• Thanks for your benevolent attitude. From now on I will be more find means other than paraphrasing. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Attributing BP in-text would also clear up a related issue, which is that the BP report seems to be referred to several times as "scouting reports"--but are there more than one?
  • Attributed two scouting sources; now more specific. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• " However, command of his curve has markedly improved, and, thus, so have his projections." -- this seems to need citation, though of course, it's a no brainer that Wacha's stock is rising after these playoff games. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Cited – twice. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

All fixes above look good, so let me get started on the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is strong; some borderline WP:PARAPHRASE issues have been addressed
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Padres

https://www.mlb.com/padres/news/michael-wacha-deal-with-padres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.233.0.197 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources have to go in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)