# Talk:Mark Gubicza

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mark Gubicza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 07:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this entry. I should be able to return in the next couple of days with some specific feedback. In the meantime, the nominator may wish to start expanding the lead section to summarize the main content from the body of the article. This lead is too short and doesn't tell us much about Gubicza's career apart from the teams he played for. 
Thanks to the nominator for the work that has gone into the entry so far. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't get back to this as a quickly as expected. Thanks for the work on the lead. I'll take a look at it one more time after I get through the rest of the article. I'll go section by section and leave some feedback. For things outside the GA criteria, I'll try to mark them as such, and if you don't get to those things, I may just fix them myself.


### Lead
Minor point: "He currently is a color commentator" - "He is a color commentator" means the same thing with fewer words; see WP:WTW.
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Gubicza suffered multiple injuries in his later career" - mostly unnecessary since you describe the specific injuries later in the sentence. If you want to add something there, you might briefly mention the impact of those injuries. It looks like he was held to less than 20 games pitched in four of those seasons.
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


### Early life
"Anthony Gubicza Jr., a former pitcher who pitched in the minor leagues" - Anthony Gubicza Jr., who pitched in the minor leagues
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Gubicza accrued 57 hits at the plate" - take out "at the plate"
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


### 1984-1986
"Gubicza proved to be a promising pitcher" - take this out, sounds like editorializing
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Following an 0–3 loss" - in prose, most sources place the higher score first, even for a loss ("Following a 3-0 loss")
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"The rotation proved to be elite" - if you are going to say something like this, name the specific source that described them this way, but don't put it in Wikipedia's voice because it violates NPOV
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"tasked with a pivotal role" - non-neutral
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"a revised Royals rotation that saw" - in encyclopedic writing, inanimate objects don't see; much easier to say Black was moved to the bullpen and Gubicza became _________________
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a general point that also applies to other sections: we are missing some inline citations, especially for material that includes statistics.
I added in-line citations for several season stat lines as well as a few other citations. Let me know if I missed anything. Sewageboy (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I hope to provide more feedback by tomorrow. Good work so far. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


### 1987-1989
"the statistically-best season" - awkward grammar, might be more neutral-sounding to point out that he had career bests in specific statistical categories
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
All-Star and All-Star Game are usually hyphenated
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
"through 255 innings" - this makes it sound like there were more innings after the 255
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


### 1990-1996
the first paragraph seems a little out of order; I'd lead with how he pitched early in the season, then discuss the surgery
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
6 run shelling - non-neutral; would be okay for a sports blog but not for an encyclopedia
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
uncomfort --> discomfort
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


### Anaheim
"Despite the seemingly mild diagnosis" - confusing, as no diagnosis is discussed here
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


### Broadcasting career
No need for a single third-level heading for Bally Sports West; same issue appears in the Personal life section
Fixed both Sewageboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I may go in and make a few tweaks to the tone, but the above are the things that stick out to me as far as the writing so far. Next I'll go through and check the references. Thanks for your patience as I work through this more slowly than I planned. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


### References
I'm sorry to drag this out again. Earwig's tool returns no significant concerns for copyright. Here are just a few things on the references.

The AP article in Early Life (ref 2 right now) supports some of the material there, but a lot of it is unsupported (Gubicza's birth details, Anthony's two years in the minor leagues) as far as I can tell. The SABR entry describes Anthony as a minor league pitcher without describing how long he spent in the minors.
I added Anthony Gubicza's obit from the Philly Inquirer that mentioned he pitched in the White Sox org for three years (and updated the prose with the more accurate info). I also included the SABR source in the first line in Early Life since it includes his birth date. Sewageboy (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The source from Ancestry describes an Antal Gubicza, but it doesn't look like it makes the connection to Mark. We should be careful using primary sources, especially for contentious issues such as ethnicity. Is there a secondary source that contains this information?
I removed the Ancestry source and replaced it with two print sources that mention Gubicza's Hungarian and Polish ancestry. I also edited the prose to reflect the new sources. Sewageboy (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
In the 1984-86 section, last paragraph, I think we could make the tone a bit more neutral, as the reference doesn't establish who was best or second-best. It would probably be easy to cite whether he had the second-most wins or second-best ERA in the rotation, but WP doesn't usually opine on subjective matters like best or second-best pitcher. Same thing for whether the pitcher was a cornerstone of something. Good for a sports opinion piece, not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
In the 1990-96 section, third paragraph, Baseball-Reference.com just gives statistics. It doesn't describe players as back to their former selves, and WP shouldn't do this either unless we're quoting someone who said it.
Fixed Sewageboy (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
In the Broadcasting Career section, is there a source that actually describes Gubie Tuesdays other than the two old clips?
I was able to locate an LA Times print source that describes the segment and I've added it to the article. Sewageboy (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure you need the mention of the 30 for 30 unless it's been discussed somewhere other than IMDb.
I've removed that portion Sewageboy (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued work. I will follow up with a copyediting pass. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I just did some light copyediting, mostly to reduce jargon and maintain neutral tone. I added a source showing which pitchers appeared in the 1983 ALCS. I removed the assertion about Gubicza being related to CIA operative Robert Ames. If we can find a reliable secondary source for it, we can put it back in, but I could not locate one. Gubicza states it on Twitter, but because it's a claim about a third party (Ames), it doesn't meet WP:TWITTER. It's a neat fact, but it can't be all that pertinent to Gubicza's biography if he's the only one who has written about it. (The SABR entry describes his uncle as Robert Ames, a former college basketball player, but it doesn't make the connection to the CIA as far as I can see.) I think we're good to pass this. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The nominator made significant improvements to the writing during the review. Good work.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Good work minimizing the use of baseball jargon here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images are appropriately tagged and captioned. The White House image is a bit blurry and I think it could be omitted, but I can't see that its inclusion affects this article's GA status.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Passing this. Congratulations to the nominator. Thanks for hanging in there even when I was too slow with the review process. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! No worries about the delays. Sewageboy (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)