# Talk:Logan Drake

This review is transcluded from Talk:Logan Drake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I will take on this review. The prose is very clear, but I have a few queries on some of the sources. Mertbiol (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)


### Prose
I have made a couple of minor changes.
In general, the prose is very clear.


### Sources
[10] does not support "After one more game and a 10.32 ERA in his five appearances".
[13] does not support "He was released in May [from Wichita Falls]".
[13] does not support "starting with Macon" – it only says that Burke was interested in acquiring him.
[14] does not support "He pitched for the team for two months" – it only says that Drake came to Maxon from the Knoxville team several weeks ago.
[18] does not mention Drake – so can’t be used to support "his final professional appearance".
I have checked references [1], [2], [3], [4], [6], [11], [15], [16], [19], [20] and have found no problems.


### Copyvio
Earwig gives a score of 4.8%. I have not detected any instances of close paraphrasing or copying from the sources.


### Stability
Article is stable.


### Image
Image is appropriately licensed.


### Placing review on hold
With just a few queries on the sources, I will put the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Will double check the sources shortly. Most should be easy fixes with just throwing in the b-r ref; I was trying not to overuse the stat references but I guess I should've been adding that in. Wizardman 14:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Fixed 10 and 18, 13 and 14 I'm gonna have to dig further maybe I grabbed the wrong reference after I typed it up. Wizardman 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
13 and 14 now fixed. 14 I just copyedited since I was admittedly guessing, 13 I found a second reference for the part of concern that ties it together. Wizardman 00:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


### Final verdict
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): 

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: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Promoting to GA status Mertbiol (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)