Talk:Janet Marie Smith

Untitled

I worked on this article in my sandbox and then when it was perfect, I moved it over to the main space. But - formatting wise, the bullet points are showing widow lines and the TOC forced left is leaving a huge gap between itself and the start of the next paragraph/section. I have never seen this before, it was fine in my sandbox. If anyone looking at this has a clue as to why this happens, feel free to leave me a message here or my talk page. In the meantime I'll keep trying to manually clean those things up but what seems like it should be a simple fix, doesn't seem to be doing anything. TIA. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 21:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just checked the page again and fixed a little typo and now everything is displaying properly - no widowed bullet lines, no massive margins surrounding the TOC. Not sure what that was all about, but glad it looks as it should. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 04:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks to the editors who have helped out with some corrections. I had all the external links that were in "external links" section in a section called "sources" initially since the citations were redundant with others, I thought it was overkill to include them all when so many already existed. But per the "too many external links" tag, I've moved the links to proper inline citations, leaving only those links that go to Youtube videos under the "external links" section since I don't believe videos are to be used as inline citations. But feel welcome to guide me otherwise if that is incorrect, I'll also do some lookups to be sure that's correct. Arjaya please advise if you can whether the "excessive external links" tag can be removed, or if I should do something else with those video links? Appreciate your insights, many thanks in advance. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Question?? Why is there not a single category for American Female Executives, or Female Executives or Women Executives, etc.? Especially with our culture leaning heavily toward more and more purposeful inclusivity, it seems this is a category that deserves to be added. I did add it there, but it was removed as it's not currently a live category, I assume admins need to add that? Arjaya is this something you can advise on? Thanks Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 10sne1- I'm not sure why you are piping my user-name to a misspelling of it, but I'll ignore that

Firstly, Yes I do think there are still too many external links; the article doesn't need to link to every mention of Janet Marie Smith that can be found. Please be selective in both your references and your external links, choose the best, most appropriate ones, quality over quantity - I'd suggest six ELs at the absolute most.

Secondly, as for why there is no category for American Female Executives, I don't know, but I suspect it may have been seen as divisive - would we then also have a category for American Male Executives? or would the females be in two lists and the males only in one? and then (and I'm not being flippant) someone could well demand American Transgender Executives - once you've divided the list, and someone doesn't fit your divide, where do you put them? It is clearly far more inclusive if everybody is in the one category. I seem to remember several arguments over guitarists, and female guitarists (although that may have been lists of, not categories). I avoid categories where possible, although I do delete redlinks, as per the one you added - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

As for your Table of contents (ToC) question, at the top, what you have is correct; it is just that most articles have longer info-boxes - including a picture and additional details (date of birth etc.) - the other option is to shrink the ToC removing the sub-subsections, as I have done - if you don't like that, then simply remove the {{TOC limit|3}} instruction that I have added.
The one thing we don't want is text squeezed between the ToC and the infobox, as this causes display problems on small screens - please remember that due to screen sizes, zoom factors, display settings and other variables, very few people will see the page looking the same as you see it - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Arjayay First, my apologies for misspelling your username in the pipe. :) Thank you for your feedback on all points. I guess I was questioning why female executives was not a category because women have historically been systemically excluded and that has begun to change with all the awakening of these things of late. But, you make a solid point, we'd have to add an awful lot of categories if we start stratifying it, and then we'd also need the category "prefer not to answer" to accommodate anyone who doesn't wish to identify in any of the predefined buckets. So I'll leave all that gendering alone. I'll keep working the ELs and trim down the multiple citations throughout as well. I'm working on trying to find some copyright free images of these parks - before and after if possible as well as a copyright free image (or get permission to use) one of the subject to include in the info box. But I know image copyrights are tricky so I want to not do it prematurely, but rather am scouring all the free online image sources for anything good. Good point on the TOC situation as well, I was looking at it on various screen sizes and it was strange the way I initially had it. My assumption was for longer articles, a details TOC was sensible, but this one is not super long, maybe 3500 words I think, if that. So I will heed your suggestion on abbreviating the TOC as well. Many thanks for your attention and feedback. Best, Tennis Anyone?^Talk 18:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Added Wikilinks to correct orphan status

As of 7/19/21, I've added wikilinks to/from the following related pages (to address page's orphan status):

• Polar Park (baseball park)
• Dodger Stadium
• List of Los Angeles Dodgers owners and executives
• Oriole Park at Camden Yards
• Dudy Noble Fiekd, Polk-Dement Stadium

I plan to remove the "orphan" tag once all wikilinks are found/updated. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 17:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

the bot beat me to it... Tennis Anyone?^Talk 18:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nominate for Good Article status

I see this article received a B-class rating, prior to my finding and adding wikimedia images to it. I've since added some images showing key projects and some of the more interesting details. I am hoping this article could obtain a GA rating. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 17:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Janet Marie Smith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 14:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I can take a look at this later today! — GhostRiver 14:39, 9 October 2021 (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

Infobox and lede

• "is a Major League Baseball (MLB) executive,"
• "of several Major League Baseball (MLB) parks" → "of several major and minor league ballparks"
• "in Baltimore, MD, Atlanta, GA, Boston, MA, and Los Angeles, CA" → "including in Baltimore, Atlanta, Boston, and Los Angeles."
• Generally, per WP:LEADCITE, citations can be exempted from the lede because the information is contained in the body
• The direct quote should also probably be in the body rather than the lede
• Olympic Stadium should be linked to Centennial Olympic Stadium
• Most of this reads as promotional rather than WP:NPOV

Background and education

• Out of place double space after "In 1984, she obtained a"
• Reorder the citations after "City College of New York" so that [7] comes before [11] and [12]
• Merge into one paragraph to prevent single-sentence paragraphs

Career

• Similar POV issues in this early section
• Quotes should not be italicized, and it should be clear who's saying them
• Major League Baseball is inconsistently capitalized throughout and should almost always be referred to by its acronym
• a position she was promoted into, trivial/assumed
• Those two bullet points should be incorporated into the prose
• Similarly, why is it "1994 – 1988" but "1981 to 1984"?

Major league baseball projects

• Why is [in the news] in brackets?
• No citations in the first paragraph of this section at all
• "old and beloved" NPOV
• "quirky" dimensions NPOV

Other major league baseball projects

• Technically these are Minor League Baseball projects

References

• masslive → The Republican
• The Baltimore Sun is used inconsistently
• Same with the capitalization of MLB.com
• Should go without saying that a Google search is not a reliable source
• In [19], the source just reads "USA TODAY", not any specific article or other identifying information
• Per WP:CIRCULAR, we do not use Wikipedia as a citation for Wikipedia articles
• Medium is considered an unreliable source because it is self-published (see WP:MEDIUM)
• There are several other issues with reference inconsistency, but I am focusing primarily on the unreliable sources or the ones that are too incomplete to decipher

General comments

• All photos are CC licensed and are relevant to the article
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Copvyio score turns up at 32.9%, with those matches being mostly job titles that thus fall under WP:LIMITED

While I have not finished reviewing this article, what I have seen in terms of prose, references, and particularly neutrality of tone suggests that serious work still needs to be done on this article. That, combined with the fact that the nominator has not edited in upwards of a month, inclines me to ✗ Fail this article for now. A fail is not a death sentence, and anyone is welcome to renominate once the issues I have suggested are addressed. — GhostRiver 15:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)