Talk:Charlie Gehringer/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Cbl62 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC) @Cbl62: before I move on to prose and other issues, please look over and respond to the sourcing and image issues below. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Due to nominator non-response, I'm going to close this review tomorrow unless I've heard from @Cbl62 by then. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a three-day time limit on responding. Your review raised a number of issues that will take time to review and address. I am not able to do all of this by tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There isn't any strict time limit, but I began the review 5 days ago, pinged you 3 days ago, came to your talk page to notify you as well, and finally sent this courtesy ping tonight. If you were generally inactive, it wouldn't be a problem to wait longer, but you have been very active and working on other pages during that time frame, so I assumed you were uninterested in the review. In any case, now you're here, I'm happy to put the review on hold if you need time to work on these issues - would two weeks be sufficient? —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw the ping three days ago, but have been busy with a major project for the past few weeks. I'll turn my attention to "The Mechanical Man" soon, probably later in the week. Gehringer is one of the all-time greats (and the cousin of the doc who delivered me 62 years ago) and really deserves a GA. But I can see from your initial comments it's going to require some substantial work. Thanks for the input and for your patience. Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll put it on hold for now - just ping me when you've covered the comments below and I'll take another look. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cbl62, it's been nearly two weeks, but there have been no changes to the article. When will you have availability to make improvements? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Got caught up in my other project. Will get on it today. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I see you've made a bunch of updates and changes. Are all the 2b issues addressed (other than the unreferenced passages, which I see there are still a few of)? —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I ordered a new copy of the Bak book (can't find my old one). My son has an Amazon account, and he's agreed to buy me the Skipper book on e-format. It will take a few days for the Bak book to arrive. I propose taking a break until that arrives. I will then return to this and resolve any remaining issues. OK with you? Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

That sounds fine, it's on hold at the moment. I'll check back in when you ping me or in a week, whichever's sooner. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

How's it going, @Cbl62? There haven't been any updates to the article and significant issues still remain, including some wholly unreferenced passages. It may be time to think about closing this review - it's been underway for a month and the article is not close to GA as it currently stands. If you need time to make significant improvements based on Bak and Skipper, that's not a problem, but it may be best to close this review and allow you the time, and then for you to renominate when the article is ready. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Ganesha811: I now have both the Bak and Skipper books. The last one arrived in the mail today. If you can give me til Monday morning, I'd appreciate it. Busy wee but will have time over the weekend to work on it. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sure. I'll check back in Monday or Tuesday. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  My son bought me the Skipper e-book and lent me his Amazon Kindle, but it's just too dim for me to comfortably use and read. So you can go ahead and close, and when I can get back to this, I'll let you know. Cbl62 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Ok! Do ping me when you renominate it; if I have time then, I'll open up a review so you don't have to wait. Happy editing in the meantime. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2025 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm surprised the Skipper book isn't used as a source for the article, instead being relegated to external links. Isn't it possible there's useful info in there not covered elsewhere? The Skipper book was written by a local newspaper reporter in Iowa. I took a look at his credits: he published a ton of books on baseball players and US political conventions, but I don't know that his work on Gehringer is really critical. It is out of print, and used copies on Amazon sell for $40 or more. Given the myriad other reliable sources on Gehringer, do you really think it is necessary to purchase and integrate this book in order to take this article to GA status? Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC) You could try interlibrary loan - that's what I often do to get rarer books and usually succeed. Worldcat suggests there's a bunch of copies all over the US (if you're based in the US) that your local library could hook you up with. WP:Resource request may also be helpful. Yes, I think it's worth at least looking at the book to see what's there. The reviews of Skipper's book on Gehringer and the creditable publisher suggest that it's a good-quality biography, not AI slop or something like that. Last resort, you could ask the WMF to buy you a copy at WP:Resource support pilot - looks like an e-book version is available for $9.99 (link). I do think that the only book-length biography of Gehringer is likely to have content useful for this article that's not currently included. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Found it on Internet Archive here. Reviewing it this afternoon. Cbl62 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC) It was only a limited preview. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC) I think your best bet would be interlibrary loan. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
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).	There are a number of unreferenced passages all over the article, from sentences to full paragraphs. I can list them below if requested, but I recommend using User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages to highlight and address them. Is Fowlervillehistory.org a reliable source? It strikes me as a well-made hobbyist site. Is BaseballLibrary.com a reliable source? Seems like it rehosts content from other sources. Please add an ISBN and other details to the Connor source. Done. Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC) What suggests that baseballbiography.com is a reliable source? Answers.com is not a reliable source. Thebaseballpage.com no longer appears to be extant and is now thisdayinbaseball.com - not sure it's reliable. Source #45, "Cobb Would Have Caught It" is rehosted from a book, we should cite the original source. Vintagedetroit.com also appears to be unreliable, but it may be rehosting writing from Bak originally published elsewhere. Inconsistent between "The Detroit Free Press" and "Detroit Free Press" - please go through and standardize. The newspaper was known officially as "The Detoit Free Press" in early years and later dropped "The" from its name. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Fair enough, thanks. As long as our cites match their name change that works. Done. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Citing historic newspaper ads to talk about business relationships strikes me as crossing the OR line. If it wasn't mentioned in secondary sources, it's probably not significant enough for inclusion. There are three other reliable sources cited for Gehringer's automotive business, showing him to be a prinipal of "Gehringer & Forsyth". The three newspaper advertisements add color and detail concerning the nature of his contributions. Given the other sources, I don't think citation of the ads constitutes original research. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Mentioning his time at Gehringer & Forsyth is fine, no problem there, but I recommend removing the mention of individual companies they did business with that are based on citations directly to advertisements.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds this, which appears to be a copyvio at first glance. However, I suspect that the website is copying from Wiki, not the other way around. Can you confirm this? Yes. No text was taken from the site referenced. That site is simply an advertisment for prints being offered for sale. Any similarity is likely due to the information having been borrowed there to advertise the prints. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Yeah, sounds good, I figured. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Hold for manual spot check.
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.	I would be surprised if an Associated Press wire photo had been published without a copyright. The auction site appears to no longer exist. Can you demonstrate that this is a public domain image? I removed File:Charlie Gehringer 1935.jpg pending clarification from the uploader. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Similarly, it would be good to get more info on File:Charlie Gehringer.jpg and why it is clear it was published without a copyright notice. Thanks! Good points. I have left messages for the file uploaders asking them to clarify. See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Thanks, hopefully these can be resolved. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC) I was informed that the uploader of File:Charlie Gehringer.jpg is deceased and thus can't provide further information. However, the uploader (User:JGHowes) was a highly respected Wikipedian, and the image remains listed as public domain. Is it your view that the image must be removed? Cbl62 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC) No, I don't think it must be. If you can verify that it's in the original source (the Tigers' photo book?) that's good enough for me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.