Talk:Albert Pujols/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 17:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll take this one on. It's quite long, so it may take me longer than usual to get through. I'll begin by looking at the pictures, stability and neutrality and will continue with a review of the prose, which will likely take a while and might be laborious. I'll then go on to the other areas and address any broader issues. The box above is a barometer of progress. I think we should be able to get through this one without much trouble (but with a little patience). --Batard0 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• A nitpick, but I'd suggest changing "Previously, he has played for the St. Louis Cardinals." to "He previously played for the St. Louis Cardinals." This simply flows with the rest of it a bit better and is just slightly more concise.

• Wikilink Dominican Republic. Also United States (not entirely necessary, but may as well for consistency).

• There's a slight bit of confusion in the second para. First, we should say "National League Most Valuable Player (MVP) Award" (this adds "MVP" in parentheses). Second, is his "first MVP Award" an NL MVP?

• runs batted in is wikilinked for the second time in the third para. Can hence be removed.

• When we say "home runs and runs batted in," perhaps we could say "home runs and runs batted in, or RBI" or else "home runs and runs batted in (RBI)" since we use RBI in the following sentence. Readers will probably get that it's RBI in any event; this is merely a suggestion.

• I'd prefer a slight rephrase of the last two sentences for clarity to the following: "He won his second World Series in 2011 as the Cardinals defeated the Texas Rangers in seven games. Pujols tied Series single-game records for home runs, hits, and RBI in Game 3. He became a free agent after the season and signed a 10-year deal with the Angels." Or something like this. My issue here is that the subclause "tying Series single-game records for home runs, hits, and RBI in Game 3" in the second-to-last sentence is somewhat out of joint with the temporal position of the rest of the sentence, which describes the Cardinals winning the overall series, not game 3.

Early life and career

More to come... --Batard0 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Having "an only child" in parentheses is a little jarring. I think the prose would be clearer if we put this in its own sentence after the first one, i.e. "He was an only child." Or we could say "Born on January 16, 1980, Pujols was an only child. He was raised ... etc. etc."

• "he was also an alcoholic, and Albert often had to drag him back home from games" -- I don't get what his father being an alcoholic had to do with Pujols having to drag him home from games. Was he drinking at the games he pitched in?

• "Growing up, Pujols would practice baseball using limes for balls and a milk carton for a glove." -- I think "practiced" is better than "would practice" here, since it conveys the same thing and is more concise.

• "where Albert witnessed a shooting at a grocery store. Two months later, they moved to Independence, Missouri, to join some relatives" -- we're not drawing a close enough link between these two events. Did the family move because they feared violence in New York? Was his witnessing a shooting coincidental to the family's move?

• "was named All-State" -- it'd be good if we could say who named him "all-state". Was it sportswriters? The statewide high school athletics association?

MLB.com just said he was named All-State twice; I'm afraid I can't find another source saying who gave him this honor. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• "he was walked 55 times (partly because opposing coaches believed he was older than 18)" doesn't fully make sense to me. Why would you walk someone intentionally because of your belief about his age? Would they still have walked him if he were a poor hitter but they believed he was older than 18?

More to come... --Batard0 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the following: "In his only college season, Pujols hit a grand slam and turned an unassisted triple play in his first game" I think it reads a little more clearly (and chronologically) like this: "Pujols hit a grand slam and turned an unassisted triple play in the first game of his only college season."

• I suggest changing "one semester" to "a semester" in an attempt to avoid confusion that may arise from a reading of "one semester early in December 1998" as meaning [one semester] [early in December] instead of the intended [one semester early] [in December]. Another possible phrasing is "After graduating one semester early from high school in December 1998". This may actually be better.

Minor League career

• "Thus, he was not drafted" -- here we can remove "Thus", since it's clear from the foregoing that his drafting had to do with uncertainties about his age, position and build.

• "is still tied for ninth" -- here I'd suggest a "was tied for ninth as of {{currentyear}}" construction.

• "Once the Cardinals increased" --> "When the Cardinals increased" is better because it more precisely locates the timing of the cause and effect.

• It might be good to say what the collegiate league was -- an amateur league, summer league, whatever.

St. Louis Cardinals -- 2001

• There should be a comma after "Tony La Russa" in the first sentence, introducing the quote.

• "including a home run (his first)" --> "including his first home run" for conciseness.

• "he his eighth home run" --> "he hit his eighth home run" (missing "hit")

• This first paragraph is too long. I suggest a new paragraph at the midseason point, so we would have "At midseason, Pujols became...etc."

• I suggest removing the following two sentences: "He hit a game-winning single on September 17 against Rubén Quevedo in a 2–1 victory over the Milwaukee Brewers.[16] The next day, he homered and had five RBIs in a 9–4 victory over the Brewers.[17]" This is fine stuff, and well-sourced, but I think we're verging on an overabundance of detail here for an encyclopedic article. I'd also suggest removal of "For his accomplishments, Pujols was named the NL co-Player of the Week along with José Mesa from September 16 to 22.[3][19]" A player of the week award is not significant in the context of Pujols' career, which is what the article is about, and hence should not be included. As the GA criteria say, we should be staying "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail".

I removed the Player of the Week Award mentions from Pujols's career summary (they are, after all, included in the table at the end of the article). Do you think the Player of the Month awards should remain or not (I never pay much attention to who wins them myself, but some reviewers prefer mention of those)? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• "However, Pujols had two hits" --> "Pujols, however, had two hits" etc...this reads a bit more clearly, I think.

2002

• The same sorts of issues with stats persist here. We don't need player of the week honors; they're not really that significant, especially in light of the fact that he's won many other more prestigious awards. I'm also a little concerned that the summaries under the year headings are merely listings of statistics and performances in games and awards. Some of these should be included, I think, like stats about him breaking club records or doing something in his career for the first time or winning a significant award. The thing about the stats here is that they crowd out any discussion of Pujols' career as a narrative; we never have sentences like (off the top of my head) "Pujols was the leading hitter on a Cardinals roster that included so-and-so and so-and-so (and maybe some pitchers, also mention who was managing the team). The Cardinals had been in decline between 1994 and 2000, but Pujols' arrival made the team a perennial playoff contender throughout the early 2000s." I'm just making this stuff up, but you'll get the drift, I think. What we need more of is a sense of context -- we need to describe what effect Pujols had on the Cardinals, how he played a role in the team's success and who the people were around him who contributed to the team's success. I'm concerned that we're both focusing too much on statistics and not being broad enough in our coverage of Pujols. He didn't exist in the vacuum of his own performance, and we shouldn't be describing him in that way. What made Pujols so good, anyway? What was it about his swing, his eyes, his mind or his build made him good? These kinds of questions should be answered here.

• I'll add that I think the year-by-year summaries may not be the best way to present Pujols' career, because the format lends itself to listings of stats, which I strongly suggest getting away from. Could we group the years into thematic sections, like "Early career with the Cardinals (2001–2005)" then "Later Cardinals career and World Series wins (2006–2011)" and "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2012 – present)". These names are just a suggestion --you know better than I do how to organize it. --Batard0 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to pause here for the moment until these issues are discussed and addressed. I think we may be looking at a major reworking of the main sections covering his career. I think this can be done within the timeframe of this review; it won't be easy or quick, however. --Batard0 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of work, but I am determined to keep this article from having to undergo a fourth GA review. It may just take some time. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's fine with me -- I can be as patient as need be, as long as we're improving the article. --Batard0 (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes addressed. I mentioned that Pujols led the Cardinals in home runs in 2001 (since he was a rookie and Mark McGwire was on the team that year), but I would refrain from mentioning that in other years because Pujols was easily the best player on the Cardinals. It would be, in my opinion, a little like saying, "Willie Mays was the leading hitter on a Giants' roster that included so-and-so." I would hesitate to mention other players too much (as this article is supposed to be about Pujols, not the St. Louis Cardinals), but Tony La Russa, Chris Carpenter, Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, Adam Wainwright, and Matt Holliday are now all mentioned in the article. Apparently, Pujols's swing was the main thing that made him good. As the Cardinals had just reached the NLCS in 2000, I do not think we can add that he brought them out of a decline. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is moving in the right direction, and the section titles are good. The fundamental issue about his major league career section remains, however. The 2001 season is fine. The 2002 season and beyond are still too bogged down by statistics and trivia, I think. I think we need more of a sense of Pujols's career as a narrative rather than a collection of statistical milestones, if you know what I mean. In other words, we want to hear the story of Albert Pujols's career, not just the numbers. Thinking about it like you're trying to tell Pujols's story might help; are there some good sources (newspaper articles, perhaps) that are structured in narrative form that might be usable as sources for this? --Batard0 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to make it more like a narrative; let me know if I need to do more. I had trouble finding newspaper articles in narrative form. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm going to go through and do some copyedits, making any additional suggestions here as I go along. I'll do this in stages, and please revert and discuss anything you disagree with. Sorry about the delay on this. --Batard0 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Going through the first few paragraphs of the early career section, I think some of the old issues are still there. It's better-organized, for sure, but I'm sure we could find something about what he meant to the team. I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but the issue is that it's basically a list of statistics and things that happened without much context around it. It's well put-together, but it's more like a well-constructed list than an encyclopedia article, if you know what I mean. I'm going to go back and do some more copyediting. I'm removing a few sentences that I think contain trivial statistics. Please take note of this and discuss if there's disagreement. --Batard0 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I added how Pujols made the Cardinals one of the best offensive teams in the league in 2002 and 2003; also, I mentioned why the pitching staff may have kept the Cardinals from reaching the playoffs in 2003. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is good stuff. This book, most of which is available at Google Books, looks like an excellent general source. --Batard0 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I added some stuff from the book. Unfortunately, the preview ends with Pujols still in the minor leagues. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's strange -- I'm able to click on any chapter in the table of contents, and it takes me to at least the first few pages of that chapter. --Batard0 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm now going through and making some more edits, including deleting some trivial statistics and such. The career section still is essentially a list of statistics put in paragraph form. This should be changed into a narrative and a lot of these statistics should simply be discarded as trivia, in my view. The obviously significant stuff, like his major accomplishments and season statistics, should be kept, but it's difficult reading slogging through stat after stat. Let's say you wanted to write a bio of Babe Ruth. You'd simply write the narrative of Babe Ruth's career, right? Writing it like "On April 28, 1924, Ruth had four hits and two home runs against John Smith as the Yankees beat the Indians 8–3. On July 22, Ruth hit the game-winning home run off Joe Smith as the Yankees beat the Red Sox 4–3. On September 3, he had another game-winning home run and hit four out of four." Does this tell us anything about Babe Ruth? Not really. It's a listing of stats that we could find if we went to a reference book. It's good to have stats, but only if they're in the right context. I'd strongly recommend looking at the article on Ozzie Smith, which is FA-class, as a guide on how to write a strong narrative account of a player's career. I think we'll be able to get this to GA status after solving some of these focus issues, but in the longer run I think the article needs a major overhaul. --Batard0 (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've finished copyediting the article, and while it reads ok, it still needs a lot more work. As a first step, I'd recommend the removal of all nonessential information. The article is far too large. It's about 7,500 words. To put that into perspective, the article on World War II is about 10,000 words. At this stage, I don't think we're going to be able to undertake the kind of fundamental reworking the article needs to improve, so here's what I suggest. First, cut it down to about 5,000 words, maximum. At that point, I'll take a final look and pass it as a GA. If you would like to make the article better, I'd suggest soliciting the help of other editors who have experience with baseball articles and the FA process. Perhaps put it through a peer review after that, and it might get somewhere. Back to where we are now: if you would rather not cut the article's size, I'll be understanding, but at the same time I won't list it as a GA, because I don't think it passes the focus criterion in its current state. I don't want to sound harsh here, but I sincerely think the article needs a lot of work. --Batard0 (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've slimmed the article down. If it needs more cuts, let me know. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All right. I'm going to pass this now, because I think it meets the GA criteria. So good job. Having said that, I think the article could still use a lot of improvement and is far from ready for consideration as an FA, for example. The concerns I have are already expressed above, but the thrust of them is that the article is too stat-heavy and not narrative enough. There are plenty of reliable sources out there that describe Pujols's career in a narrative fashion, and I would recommend using those as a basis for a rewrite. The stats don't have to be eliminated entirely, but should be substantially scaled back in favor of the narrative. If you want to take this further, I would suggest making the aforementioned changes and then taking it to a peer review before nominating it as an FA. --Batard0 (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)