Talk:Derek Jeter/GA1

GA Review

I'll be doing the GA review of this article. Here are some initial suggestions for improvement:

The lead doesn't summarize the article adequately enough.
His high school stats need sourcing.
Watch the MoS violations. I saw some capitalization, dash, and reference placement errors.
In the major league career section, all the years have relatively small amounts of text. Combining some of the years would make it look more aesthetically pleasing. Done
"2008 was a sub-par offensive year for Jeter." - sentences like these should not be included. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Watch the peacock language: notable, iconic, spectacular, etc. Done
Couldn't The Dive be merged into 2004? The Flip and Mr. November into 2001? The Jeffrey Maier Incident into 1996? All of that would help with the aforementioned length problem in the major league section. Done
"He is in the 7th year of a 10-year contract and made $20.6 million for the 2007 season." - time dependent Done
"His contract, which has a total value of $189,000,000 is the 3rd largest contract in baseball history, behind two contracts of Alex Rodriguez." - source?
"Jeter's defense has been the subject of criticism from a number of sabermetricians, including Bill James[26], Rob Neyer[27],[28] and the publication, Baseball Prospectus[29].[30]" - the referencing surrounding the punctuation here is bad. Refs should go after punctuation. Done
The criticism section needs some support for the various people's claims. They say he is bad...but what are their reasonings?
Awards need sources.
The personal life section needs to be expanded. I'd imagine that a lot of people come to this page looking for information about all the famous women he has dated. He has very well known for it. How long did he date these women? Did he live with any of them? Was he ever engaged to any of them? Stuff like that.
IMO, endorsements and other appearances should be combined. Also, it should be in prose rather than bullets. The SNL quote needs a source. Done
A lot of the references need access dates.

That's it for now. The article will be on hold for a week for improvements. Nikki311 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seven days are up, so I am failing the article for insufficient improvements. Please feel free to keep working to improve the article and consider renominating in the future. Happy editing. :) Nikki311 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]