Talk:Dick Padden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article. I should point out that I only have a basic knowledge of baseball and so I am approaching this article very much as a general reader!

My only real concern about this article is that it is a little short on details, particularly on the personal life of Padden. I am aware that the information may not be available or even to exist, but if at all possible, it would be good to include something. For example, the infobox gives a place of birth, but this is not mentioned or expanded in the article. Any information about his family? However, lack of this information would not be enough for me to fail it. The only worry is the very short sections and paragraphs. If the information is not available, could some of the sections be combined?

His birth place is mention in the first sentence of the lead. Most of the personal things included in the article came from his obit, so it is unlikely that any more could be gained from internet sources. About combining sections, I'll wait for the nominator's input on this.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the birthplace! Need to clean my glasses!--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• Where did the nickname come from? How reliable is this? It does not seem to be part of the reference given.

I changed the reference to show that does have a link to his nickname, as for why though, nothing I have found addresses that. His peers, through what I've read on Padden, seemed to think he was a smart ball player, but nothing appears to say that is why he was nicknamed "Brains".Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "After playing a season and a half in the minors...": For the lead, even assuming that everyone who reads it knows what minors are, would it be better to say "minor leagues", as this is more formal.

Fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "where he was the player-manager for the, then minor league team, Chicago White Sox." This is not an easy sentence to read. Could it be re-phrased, for example "where he was the player-manager for the Chicago White Sox, then a minor league team."

Used your example.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to cite references in the lead, as there is nothing that is not in the main article, or nothing that is contentious?

Took the obit reference out, left the player ref up top to show proof of nickname.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't mention his post career, or any of his achievements, such as batting average.

I added a third paragraph, as well some of his lifetime stats. Let me know if this helped.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

• Why was a replacement needed for Truby?

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "slow offensive start": what does this mean? Perhaps this needs spelling out a little.

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "which led all National League players in his position": again, this could do to be spelt out a little. I assume it means that he had the best record for second basemen in the league?

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "career highs in several offensive categories": Career high could be spelt out a little - even if it is just "the highest of his career", and I'm struggling with "offensive" again! It could just be me, though!

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is possible, but could his statistical achievements be put into some sort of context, whether in terms of his own record, or in comparison to others?

Whenever I could, I included career highs to his statistical categories, but it is hard to provide scope as he was rarely in the league leaders, to say "he finished fifth in the league in...."Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "He made 128 appearances in 1898, again as their starting second baseman. Offensively, his statistical output dropped from his previous season; his batting average lowered to .252, and scored 61 runs in 463 at bats" The reference should be at the end of the second sentence and the link given seems to give a different batting average.

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Still same problem, though. "Offensively" has been removed, but the reference is still at the end of "starting second baseman", while it should follow "at bats". Also, the sentence gives a .252 average but the link for the reference gives .257 unless I've totally misunderstood it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Washington

• "traded": again, could this be spelt out a little?

"traded" is the official term for when two or more teams swap players, I linked it to help people if they do not know what it means. Any other word just sounds like sportswriter slang.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "batted": it might read a little better to stick to "averaged" or "had a batting average of"
• "and was ejected from the game by the umpire a league leading three times": do we know why he was ejected? "League leading" seems to be a bit too much like short-hand; it would be better to say "which was the most in the league."

No context was given on the ejections themselves, just a statistic given by the source. I re-worded both parts of the sentence.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chicago

• What is an "unknown transaction"?

My way of bridging him leaving one team and moving to another, without knowing the details, removed it.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Career high" again

As far I could tell, there wasn't one in this section, found it in the St. Louis section, and re-worded it.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are there any details of the physical altercation?

What you see is what I was able to find.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• How was his leadership received, particularly after the game against Milwaukee?

Nothing more about that game, or how he was perceived after that. Conjecture would say that even though he was considered smart, and may have felt a little chummy with his former manager, Mack used that against him and prevailed. I suspect that his leadership ability didn't take much of a hit, he was not the first nor the last to get hoodwinked by the master, Mr. Mack.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Mack, who figured...": Figured does not seem formal enough.

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "won the game behind..." seems like jargon to me.

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

St. Louis

• "He batted .256 that season": "batted" again.

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "which was slated to begin playing in 1902": slated seems too informal.

re-worded.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• "He led the league in hit by a pitchs with 18 in 1904": this does not make sense as it is written. I also might expand on "hit by pitches", as it seems to be his greatest achievement!

I included the hit by pitch achievements in the lead, and expanded this sentence to give it a little context.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Return to the minors

• Do we have any details about how or why he attempted to buy the Daytona team?

No reason given, just seems to be an opportunity for him own a team.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• This section seems to be very brief. Could it be expanded at all?

Not sure, could be part of your earlier question about combining sections.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Post career

• Another short section
• The Spink quote seems to be stuck in here without really fitting. Should it not go at the end of his career as a player? It could also do to be expanded with some more judgements of him, if this is possible.
• Any more details about his attempt to become mayor?

This section is short precisely due to the fact that no other information is known, but felt a "post-career" section needed to be included. The Spink quote could be moved, but I sneaked it in this section as kind of a "legacy" quote, but I couldn't unearth anything to add to this quote that another editor put in.Neonblak ^talk - 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and combined the last two sections into one, maybe that works better.Neonblak ^talk - 08:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

General

• This is just a personal preference, but I prefer statistics to be in the main sentence; rather than "at bats (517)", I prefer "517 at bats". I think it reads better.

fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 08:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could we explain why he changed teams so often? I think each of his moves could do with explaining where possible. And why did he retire: one of the links for a reference, to the Washington Post, mentions that he stopped playing due to a sprained ankle.

Nothing seems to indicate a reason why, I can only say that he played during a period in the game when moving from team to team wasn't uncommon, with high level minor leagues paying their players fairly well, the dislike of the reserve clause, and the emergence of the American League as a rival to the National League. Added the sprained ankle information into the article.

• Ref. 21 links to a google books page but the link does not show the page listed.

Is this the flint glass reference? I linked the page number by the browser, not the journal number, wasn't sure which one to use.Neonblak ^talk - 08:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Other refs seem OK, as far as I could check them.
• All information given is relevant and interesting.
• Neutral and stable.
• The one photograph is ok. Any more photographs?

none that I could find.Neonblak ^talk - 08:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Connie Mack and Jack O'Brien link to disambiguation pages.

fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 08:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• References: could the place of publication be added? Also, "James, Bill. The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract." is referenced but no publication information is given.

fixed.Neonblak ^talk - 08:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Finally, it would be good to include some assessment of his career or his personality, to broaden out the article.

Not much else is known, I tried to include EVERYTHING into the article, which isn't very much, but in all actuality, for an average player from his era, this is a pretty good amount.Neonblak ^talk - 08:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will place the article on hold. I am aware that not all of these points may be possible to address, but if no more detail can be added, that is OK. I would pass a brief article, as long as other points were sorted out. However, I feel the article would greatly benefit from some expansion or inclusion of some context for his career. Should be no problem to pass, but it could be improved even more.--Sarastro1 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like most of it is sorted now, just a couple more points.

• • Lead is better. If someone was really fussy, they may comment that it is now too long and a bit too detailed! However, I'm happy with it and would pass it as it is.
  • "Mack traded Truby straight across for him": could be explained better for the uninformed like me!
  • "He had hoped that his ankle would heal, so that he could be ready for the next season, but he appeared as a player after" Presumably this should read "he never appeared as a player after."
  • "Despite that incident, Padden's, and his leadership skills, led the White Sox to the American League championship that season." This sounds a little messy. It may be better to say "Despite that incident, Padden, and his leadership skills, led the White Sox to the American League championship that season." or "Despite that incident, Padden's leadership skills led the White Sox to the American League championship that season."
  • I think it is better having the last 2 sections combined, but it may be better to have a level 2 header for "Post-major league career" to break up the article a bit more.

Very nearly ready to pass this. The improvements have made it better. Very interesting to someone like me who knows little about this subject.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done; made a couple extra changes that I noticed. I can second Neonblak's claim that this is all we can find; 19th century baseball players are notoriously difficult to expand. Wizardman _{Help review good articles} 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm happy to pass this. Altered the batting average myself. Feel free to change it back if I've made a mistake.--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)