Talk:The Soxaholix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Soxaholix has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.


(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
The Soxaholix is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Editorial Review

One item which I will throw out as the first change that will probably be worth making is to put all of the citations into {{cite web...}} format. I was just getting used to the criteria for this format at the time that I introduced it to some of the citations and not others. Any help on these citations would be appreciated. ju66l3r 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Two questions arising from Peer review so far:

  1. The characters need to be described from an "out of universe" perspective (see the added tag).
  2. General questionability of the reliable sources, including a more problematic description of the WSJ article as a copyright violation (I personally do not see it as such, but this was the reviewer's comment).

A few things to think about, in order to reach GA status. ju66l3r 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the perspective of the characters section and removed the tag. I have also replaced any links to the WSJ article causing potential copyvio problems. ju66l3r 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that the Peer Review is archived, I'm submitting this article for GA status. ju66l3r 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

This is very close to good article status. The only issue that I can see is that the images tagged for fair use lack a detailed fair use rationale on their discussion page (further information on Help:Image page). If this problem can be resolved I believe the article is ready to be passed, please leave a note on my talk page if this is done. Seraphimblade 04:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what was needed. Excellent work and glad to pass it. Seraphimblade 03:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)