Talk:Bill Virdon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 01:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a review. Wizardman 01:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images and sources both check out, as do any deadlink or copyright issues. Prose review will be tomorrow. Wizardman 01:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow, three days, close enough. Here's what I found:

"but he struggled, batting .233 for Kansas City." for 'for kansas city' part is redundant.
Seems like there's a couple years of his playing career that were fully skipped over. Likewise the Astros managing career jumps from 75 to 80 all at once.
"Virdon began operating a baseball academy in 1956" the ref for that sentence should be fleshed out.

I'll do another read-through once the above is fixed. Wizardman 02:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref has been filled out. Kansas City redundancy resolved. I didn't see much on Virdon's managing career, but I'll look again and address that by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good, I'll do another read-through today (I could've sworn I had gotten back to this, my apologies). Wizardman 14:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't gotten to the missing years, I don't think. I've been busy IRL and haven't gotten to devote real time to this yet, but I will. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a line on the Astros in 1976, 1977, and 1978. I can add more. The "Coaching and managing" section is longer than his playing section (which is appropriate given his career), but I'm having a hard time thinking about how exactly to subsection it. Any thoughts? Otherwise it'll come to me in a day or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what would be ideal. I feel like there'd be less to gain from oversectioning each team, but I don't know of an alternative way. Wizardman 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah me neither. I'll check on any other missing years today, so let me know if there's anything else to fix. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything else on a second read-through, but while I'm satisfied on the managerial side of things, the middle part of his playing career (57-59, 61) still feels too glossed over for me; are you sure there's not anything else notable to add? I'm not looking for Matt Holliday levels of detail of course, but there should be something considering that he had a rather lengthy career as an everyday player. Wizardman 02:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found a source that could add some nice info into the early years, though I didn't find that to be a concern: [1]. I'm leaning towards passing now despite the nitpick above but i'd like to see that source added in at least. Wizardman 02:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and will ping when I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: I added the astigmatism, and reordered the minor league section a bit to be more linear. I added a little for 57-59 but there's not much to say about those years. He was a steady .260s hitter with strong defense, if I list stats from each year, it'll get redundant quick. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I had the same problem with the last article I wrote so I get where you're coming from (why consistently decent players are the toughest to write about I don't know). Since everything's set I'll pass this as a GA. Wizardman 11:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think it's because consistency is boring. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]