# Talk:George Kelly (baseball)

I removed the phrase "and is widely accepted as the weakest member of the hall of fame." because it is more more of an opinion than a fact.  Without sources to back up the phrase, I think it should stay out.

This review is transcluded from Talk:George Kelly (baseball)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this article. I have read it through several times and it seems very well done. Nicely and clearly written and a pleasure to read. I just have a few inquiries, mostly about his "controversial" Hall of Fame induction. Even after reading it over, I am unclear why he was elected to the Hall of Fame. The article does mention some talents he had, but doesn't state specifically he was elected for x, y and z. And I don't understand the controversy, based on what is said in the article.

Lede
This should state clearly why he was elected why he was elected  to the Hall of Fame, since that appears to be his main claim to fame.
Also, the article indicates that his election was "controversial". I think this should me mentioned in the lede also. I am not clear about what the controversy was.

Hall of Fame induction
As mentioned above, the controversy, charges of "cronyism". the Veterans Committee was "not selective enough". But this is vague. What was going on? And what where his alleged talents that he was elected?
This is my main issue. Everything else checks out about the article.
I will place it one hold. I may note a few other issues, but I don't see anymore now.
One link needs disambig:  American Association which I can do myself.
Placed on hold.
MathewTownsend (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I expanded the lead and worked on the HoF section a bit to try to improve clarity. As for why he was elected, no reason needs to be given when a player is elected. The article I cited with his election talks about his throwing arm. In fact, I used that quote in the quote box in that section. The "Player profile" section talks about what sort of player he was. The controversy is the charge of cronyism: that Kelly was a good player but not a "Hall of Fame" caliber player, and that while the BBWAA rightly passed on him, he got elected because of this Veterans Committee, which had some of his former teammates on it. I hope that's clear now. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Reply
ok, great. That explains a lot. Very helpful. Thank you. Give me a chance to look over the article again, but I don't anticipate any problems, as I have read it a few times already. I realy like these baseball articles that you write.
MathewTownsend (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  manual of style guidelines for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources according to the guide for layout: 

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

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Focused: (See summary style): 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Well done. Congratulations!  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)