Jump to content

Talk:Jim Thome/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Zepppep (talk · contribs) 08:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing the article. Zepppep (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: the lead does not accurately summarize the article's contents. Per WP:MOS, "it should be able to stand alone as a concise overview."
What specifically would you like to see included there? Without delving into stats for each year, I am not sure what else from the article would be worth including in the lead. Go Phightins! 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What years did he play with those teams? Is he in the top 10 in other other stats? Playing in two WS is notable enough for the lead. How many pennant teams has he been a part of? The way in which the awards he has won is written is repetitive. The lead should generate interest whilst not being a "teaser," yet if I'm a casual reader dropping by, I don't believe the lead would likely generate enough interest for me to scroll to the body. Take a look at some articles which are GA. (Correct, I am certainly not advocating the lead should list season-by-season stats.)
 Doing... Go Phightins! 14:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The lead is now comparable to that of other baseball GAs such as Eduardo Nunez,Bill Stein, and Byron McLaughlin. Go Phightins! 19:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first example is of a player who has had a relatively short career compared to Thome; the second is not a particularly popular article and the last is approx 25k bytes whilst this article is over 40k. Additionally, this lead contains some unnecessary info, such as the WS opponents, and I do not believe this lead summarizes the article well. I do, however, believe it is coming along. Zepppep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: section needs expanded. He was all-state in two sports; what made him choose only one? Why did he choose Illinois Central College? Was he recruited by any schools? Was he offered a scholarship? Why did he only play one season?
 Doing... I tried to clarify this section. Coverage of Thome's early life is rather sparse. Well, let me rephrase that. Non-trivial coverage of Thome's early life is sparse. Go Phightins! 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Do you mean you have yet to discover sources which shed light on his early life? Why was he not drafted? What was his reaction to not being drafted. He was drafted in 1989...ok, in which sport? Was he recruited by any other schools? Again, was he offered a scholarship? What are his parents' names, and profession? What was his childhood like? Where was he born?
I added some info on his family from the JockBio source. I am assuming that "enrolled" implies that he was not offered a scholarship, but I've not been able to verify that. The source seems to imply that he didn't have much of a backup plan after he wasn't drafted, so he enrolled at the local school. Go Phightins! 18:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I would tentatively place the done tag on this section pending any other concerns/requests you may have. It is significantly better than those of Edgar Renteria and Jonathan Sanchez, and is comparable to those of Joe Nathan and Kevin Youkilis, all of which are Baseball GAs. Go Phightins! 14:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information added is borderline WP:Trivial mentions. Additionally, the information about his grandmother and father being softball "legends" is unsourced. If you used JockBio as your source, I'll just tell you upfront that the reliability of said source is undoubtedly questionable. A lot of people play softball and unless they were semi-pro or above, I wouldn't include any of the softball information in the article. Mentioning that some of his family members played softball does not hurt, but I don't see anything that they've done as notable (such as semi-pro or above, Olympic team, etc.). Questions that should be answered are 1) where did Thome get his interest in his eventual profession? 2) what was his childhood like and how would one describe his demeanor? Are there any traits that he has today that can be pointed out back then? Was there a seminal life event or story that caused him to want to become a ball player? Did he play catch with his brothers or dad, or were they completely uninvolved? Did he have a batting cage or play on any travel/AAU teams? Additionally, "legend" and "starred" would need to be changed per WP:NPOV. Place his graduation later in the paragraph rather than to start it out. What does passing interest mean, exactly? Did any scouts actually come to see him play? Lastly, I would argue that Thome's article should be stronger than the examples you've cited as Thome is a likely HoFer whilst the others are likely not. You may not be able to answer all of the questions I've posed but I'm hoping for a little more background on why he chose baseball, perhaps high school game feats, upbringing, etc. Zepppep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK...a couple things. Growing up in a family where everyone played softball sparked his interest, at least based on the article. I wasn't familiar with JockBio prior to this, so you may be right about its reliability, but its website's "who we are" page, its people look pretty reputable. I'm thinking that its pretty reliable. Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in his family played softball? Mother? Sisters? Additionally, there are lots of next-of-kin who are inspired to do completely opposite of their previous parents. We would need a source to prove causation and to avoid WP:OR. I'm not sure what level of softball these folks played, as well as slow vs. fast pitch. One might argue that some family members playing softball for their employee had absolutely nothing to do with someone in the family pursuing baseball and becoming a likely HoFer. I would say keep digging and let's include what we can source.
  • CLE: I see you've added details to this section over time. However, I feel it's still lacking. Some seasons are not even mentioned. There are several years in which stats are not mentioned.
 Doing... stats added for all years Go Phightins! 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Still lacking. I feel this section overall is improving, but still not there yet. Any quotes, from Thome or others? What allowed him to play for the big league club in '94? Did he have to tryout during spring training? Did he spend the entire season with the big league club? The players such as Baerga were brought in to gel, not for any other reasons? The seasons in which he and the Indians went to the WS are rather light in detail. What was it like playing in his first WS? How did he do? What is the name of the Charlottee minor league team, and why is it not linkable upon first reference? Is the '92 club he played for the same one he played for in '93? I have a bit of an issue with "the season is considered one of the best in modern history." Issues with "he had an excellent season" and "phenom Manny Ramirez."
The '98-'00 seasons 1998 is updated...did I cite the Google News archive sources appropriately as far as the work and title? Go Phightins! 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC) paragraph is an example of what I would call need for expansion. The season-ending stats for 3 seasons of play is all there is. The '94 lockout should be explained a bit so a casual reader (or a younger one) understands what happened that season. Additionally, his stats for that season are included in the next paragraph but that next paragraph is not related to '94; separate appropriately. Also, list how many games he played that season. Give "closer to winning a WS" some context; what were the Indians' records during Thome's last years with the club? What were sportswriters saying leading up to the trade? Thome himself? His salary(ies) with CLE should be mentioned, as the way it's currently written, it makes it sound like Thome wasn't making decent money with CLE. Zepppep (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite news#Examples for a view. For articles which I find on Google News, I use the news template and do not mention anything about Google (or wherever else I may have found it). If you find an original article is no longer available, or would like to preserve an original by use of an archive, that's a bit of a different story. For articles on Google News, be sure to use "newspaper" instead of "work," and include all the necessary details, such as accessdate, date, author, agency, publication name, URL, location (if can't be discerned from publication name), publisher, page, title, etc. This is how I've done it thus far and haven't run into any issues. The reason why I'm thinking this is perfectly OK is because the URL will be to the article on Google News, and the mark-up credits the actual source. Google didn't have anything to do with the creation of the article, they're simply providing a means to access that article. You haven't actually archived the original, but instead Google did that for you. And lastly, no cost is associated with accessing the archive so a notice to the reader in that regard is not applicable. Zepppep (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last question on this, I promise. If an article is written by the AP and therefore doesn't cite a specific author, is it all right to put "AP" as the first name of the author? Go Phightins! 14:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask as many questions as you like. For the mark-up, put "Associated Press" next to "agency" as seen here. If there is no author, leave it blank. Zepppep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I believe the done tag is finally acceptable for the Cleveland section. I added stats for his ws appearances, there's info. on his seasons in Cleveland beyond a simple stat report, and I've expanded the subsection on his exit. Go Phightins! 14:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section is much improved. Zepppep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS issues: pluralize RBI; "six-year $85 million" add comma; avoid starting sentences with years; with sentences that begin with a number, such as "25," the number should be written out.
 Doing... Go Phightins! 15:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN. I see several still present. There are several other WP:MOS issues, such: numbers less than ten not written out, scores not separated by endashes, back and forth between "runs batted in" and "RBIs," etc. Zepppep (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ClockC What is consensus...runs batted in, RBI, or RBIs? Go Phightins! 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS, "RBI" and "RBIs." For example, "RBI leader." For plural use, would appear as "hit 97 RBIs." Upon first use, use the full term and put abbreviation immediately following it in parentheses (make full term linkable). Zepppep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking completion: this review will be easier for the both of us if you reserve the "done" checkmark for issues which have been dealt with fully. We're not working under a deadline here so there's no rush. Zepppep (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strikeouts: is/was Thome known as an easy batter to strikeout? The number of strikeouts he had in 2001 is mentioned, but there are lots of opportunities for expansion regarding this facet of his playing career.
  • Would look to shorten the "second stint..." headings. Zepppep (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--OK, that one is done, I changed them to make "second stint with Philadelphia (2012)" rather than "second stint with the Philadelphia Phillies (2012)" Go Phightins! 18:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will check back tomorrow as I'm currently exhausted. Note: if Mon-Thurs or so I'm inexplicably MIA, it's likely because Hurricane Sandy left me powerless. I'll work on this article as much as I can as long as I can. Go Phightins! 04:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Stay safe and thanks for changing "done" to "doing." There is a lot of work to be done with this one. Personally, I thought it was a bit early to take it to GAN. If it ultimately doesn't work out this time around, there's always another day. Sometimes it can be daunting to reply to to-do's during the GA process. That's typically why I would encourage a little help from other editors to get it as strong as possible (which is one reason why I put up maintenance tags) because it can indeed be a lot of work to reply to the reviewer's to-do's. Zepppep (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I've reviewed a decent number of them, so I thought I'd work on one. I'll get to at least some of the to-dos this afternoon. Well, in theory. The rain was supposed to start in about 16 hours, and it's already started, this is going to be a doozy. Go Phightins! 11:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Checking... I believe that I've addressed all of your concerns...I am constantly re-reading for MOS issues, which I will fix if I see, and the only thing left is the RBI vs. RBIs vs. runs batted in question I asked. Go Phightins! 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
No, there are more :). Zepppep (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd round:

  • Lead: "A five-time MLB All-Star, he has also" : without stating which team he is currently with, there's no need for "has also"
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What position does he play?
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also won the Silver Slugger Award" : remove "also"
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They lost to the Atlanta Braves and the Florida Marlins respectively." remove as it's not pertinent who the opponent is, especially considering the years and World Series are already linkable
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 15, 2011" : date is not particularly notable for the lead, so remove
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Against the Detroit Tigers, Thome hit the homer off of Daniel Schlereth" : the team and pitcher he hit the HR off of is not notable. In the lead, simply mention the fact that he's hit 600 HRs. Including the year and how many other players have reached the milestone is OK. Homer is colloquial. Replace with "home run" and make it linkable
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all-time for most career home runs with 612 and 24th all time" : all-time vs. all time (use the former)
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "runs batted in with 1,699." : make "runs batted in" linkable upon first use. Also, I would remove the reference as it is not stating anything controversial and will be mentioned in the body
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: " (6'2" 175 lbs.)" : need metrics, as well (also, "lbs." to "pounds")
 Half done is there a template that automatically converts to metrics? --Go

Phightins! 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check Template:Convert. You can change around the order of measurements based upon article subject and likely audience.
 Done Go Phightins! 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all-state in both baseball and basketball" : which class?
 Not done I haven't been able to find this; even finding its current class has been a challenge, and it's possible that in the last 20-25 years its changed classes.
True. If you've exhausted all possible sources, that's all I can ask. It wouldn't prevent it from achieving GA, either.
  • "drafted by Cleveland in 1989" : change to "Cleveland Indians" and make it linkable (can then make the same unlinkable in following section)
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CLE: " He was 2 for 4 in that game" : "In the game, he went 2-for-4, recording his first hit..."
 Done --Go Phightins! 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thome had an injury-riddled 1992 campaign in which he played for both the Indians and their AAA affiliate" : what kinds of injuries? mention the Triple-A affiliate and make it linkable
I determined that it was injury riddled based solely off of Who's Who In Baseball which is a glorified Baseball Reference in print that also lists disabled list stints, but not the types of injuries. I can include the dates he was on the DL, but that gets back into the trivial mentions debate. Go Phightins! 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if any of them are back related, which has plagued Thome throughout his career during various times. Check team disabled list archives if possible, especially since you're mentioning it, it likely means it was either a significant period of time or impacted his ability to play. If the stints were short, I'm not sure I would mention it. A player going on the DL for a few days or a week or little more is likely not notable. If there were many stints or the start of injuries which he later had to deal with, then I would search a bit more.
  • "the Indians AAA affiliate" : if the same team as previous sentence, simply state "mostly for Charlotte." If different team, mention it but also included apostrophe after "Indians" to make it "Indians' Triple-A affiliate."
plus Added--The Indians had different AAA affiliates in 1992 and 1993 Go Phightins! 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal. So make sure both team names are mentioned.
  • "He hit a league leading" : which league?
plus Added Go Phightins! 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "102 runs batted in" : "RBIs" (not going to do this for each RBI reference, but I think you get the point)
Yup, I got it, I'll fix them as I see them. Go Phightins! 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the winter prior to the 1994 players' strike" : I'm not in love with the way this sentence begins
Me either, but to date it's the best of come up with... perhaps the winter of 1994 and reference the players' strike later? Go Phightins! 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that better? Go Phightins! 22:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "compete once again" : the reader has no context regarding this
 Working on this. Go Phightins! 22:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed I stated that they'd previously had 6 straight sub .500 seasons. Go Phightins! 22:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sandy Alomar" : add "Jr." and directly linkable
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mark Clark" : make directly linkable
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "youngster" : too informal for an encyclo; simply state Ramirez's age
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He made $325,000" : needs period. Also, was this his salary or what he actually made?
What's the difference? I copied this directly from Baseball Reference. Go Phightins! 22:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Salary does not mean the same thing as "made." A player may receive bonuses, penalties, etc. which impact what they actually made. Typically salary is all that would need to be mentioned.
 Done Changed from "made" to "his salary was". Go Phightins! 01:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This group led the Twins" : change to "The Indians"; also, likely need to include the division these teams were competing in, and how the Twins were the leaders of the division
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wild card" : make linkable
  • "Despite Thome's success" : having an issue with "success", as one might argue he wasn't...if going to use "success," need to have sources to back it up
 Fixed changed to "progress" Go Phightins! 22:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is pretty similar. How about "numbers" or "statistics" or something less POV-y.
 Done Go Phightins! 18:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wasn't" and "1995 season" : no contractions in prose; generally speaking, making team seasons linkable is not looked upon well in articles
 Half done wasn't to was not; should I ditch the link entirely, make it 1995, or something else? Go Phightins! 22:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could link 1995. Might go with "mlby" rather than "by."
 Done Go Phightins! 01:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Indians fully came together" : this has multiple meanings, so if you're meaning wins/losses, simply state it (which it is in the next sentence, which means you can remove one of the two)
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Led by Thome" : this perhaps means leadership or stats; if stats, simply state "Thome led the Indians with..."; if it's leadership, likely going to need to be sourced. This is an example of where a quote could prove helpful...
My uneducated guess would be that his leadership of teams didn't come 'til later. There is a quote, I believe in the Orioles section, that substantiates his leadership. Go Phightins! 22:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, make sure that the reader understands he was "the team's home run leader," or similar.
  • " American League Central" : mention the division earlier (see above)
 Done--Go Phightins! 22:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by far the best in the league" : quantify this. Also, how many games did the WS go?
plus Added Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 1997.[9] He then hit 38 home runs in 1996" : '96 details should appear first
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(156 m)" : add hyphen
plus Added Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "homers " : "home runs"
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "120 walks" : make linkable
 Done Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tribe" : colloquial; change to "Indians" or "Cleveland"
 Fixed Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strong offense" : quantify
Doesn't hitting 220 home runs already quantify a strong offense?
To someone who doesn't have any idea how many home runs a team might hit in a year, no. Those are the types of readers who will be reading this article from time to time. Give a little context (e.g., "the first team to hit more than XX home runs in a season since XXXX" or "220 home runs (the MLB average that year was XXX)". Honestly, as much as I follow baseball, I don't even know how many team home runs would be top 10 of all-time, for example. Also, let's not confuse offense with runs scored, or power vs. runs.
changed to "record offense" Go Phightins! 18:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was led by Thome" : again, how is this meant? the preceeding sentence already tells me he was the team's leading HR guy
minus Removed Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they lost to the Marlins" : "Florida Marlins" and make linkable; how many games did the WS go?
 Done I linked it to the Florida Marlins team page, not the page for their 1997 season. That's what you wanted, right? Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, link to team article, not 1997 team article.
  • "1998 through 2000 were relatively average years for Thome." : generally like to avoid starting sentences with years. Also, quantify this otherwise it's POV
I adjusted it to a new sentence that I really don't like, but it's at least verifiable. Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1999 was a comparatively poor year for the Indians, but a decent year for Thome" : same as above
See above. Go Phightins! 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York Yankees 10 game" : how is this notable? need to provide some context. Also, would be "New York Yankees' 10-game". Additionally, since NYY is already linkable in the same section, it wouldn't need to be in this one. Could also just state "Yankees"
Without the game having some importance, I would argue that mentioning one of Thome's 612 or whatever home runs is a trivial mention. Snapping a 10 game winning streak explains why this was different than any other game, in my opinion. Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way that paragraph starts out is confusing. It makes it seem like it's going to talk about the next three years, but in fact, only that coming season. Either work on merging a few paragraphs or change it some other way. Also, it gives the impression Thome and CLE dropped off the face of the earth. In '98 they won the Central and lost in the ALCS. I would have to think there are quite a few highlights to the season for Thome other than snapping a 10-game win streak of another team. If you want to keep in this mention give it some context, such as "Thome's home run broke the Yankees' 10-game winning streak, the same team the Indians would later face in the playoffs." Or something like that. Currently, the mention sort of sticks out like a sore thumb and seems to give a little too much credit to the Yankees, considering the number of mentions the team already has in the article.
Still missing a hyphen after "10" Zepppep (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the source, I would say stopping that particular win streak was notable. However, why is breaking what would be the best record thru 86 games not mentioned? If it's mentioned, it adds some context and can therefore see why it is being included. Zepppep (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late in the year, Thome broke a bone in his right hand and missed about a month." : too ambiguous; tell the reader when the injury occurred, and find a number of games he missed if possible
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "game 3 of the ALCS" : "Game Three" or "Game 3," and write out ALCS upon first use
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "belted" : hit
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cleveland victory" : who did CLE play, and who won the ALCS?
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He finished the year with" : do you mean the regular season? and if so, place it before playoffs
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "belted" : hit
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the next part is a bit confusing, as it gives the impression CLE and NYY were in the ALCS again. If it was a regular season game, simply state that. Also, a three-game losing streak is not particularly notable (unless it happened to be CLE's longest losing streak, which I doubt) so the entire GS off Hernandez appears trivial. If going to remain change "snapping" to "ending"
minus Removed the losing streak mention, but left the reference to the grand slam as they aren't that common and since it happened against the team they beat a few months ago in the ALCS, I don't know, I just think it's notable enough for a mention. Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two run homer" : "two-run home run"
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2–0" : "two games to none" (to avoid it looking like a game score)
 Done Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boston" : tell the reader the opponent sooner; also, use full team name
 Done Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two run home run" : "two-run"
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Indians missed the playoffs" : mention this earlier so the game vs. TOR has some context
 Not done The Blue Jays game was while the Indians were still vying for a wild card spot. Go Phightins! 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like CLE was in the hunt; so where was CLE in the standings as a result of winning that game? And the team finished 90–72 that year but missed the playoffs; the reader is dying to know what record the team that beat out CLE had.
  • "37 homers" : "37 home runs"
 Fixed all runs batted in except the first and the one in the infobox are now changed to RBIs and all homers are now home runs
  • "Thome personally" : double meaning here
 Fixed Go Phightins! 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a league high" : AL or MLB?
MLB, clarified. Go Phightins! 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ALDS": make linkable and write out; who was their opponent? how many games did it go?
"plus Added
  • "They lost after being defeated by Jamie Moyer twice." : not due to other reasons? this appears to be a rather narrow view
Moyer pitched in two games and posted a 2-0 record in 12 innings allowing a grand total of 2 runs giving him an ERA of I believe 1.50 if my math is correct...the scores in the games Moyer pitched were 5-1 and 3-1 respectively. It seems to me that that was the best performance in the series, so, unless you view strongly to the contrary, I'd be inclined to leave it. Go Phightins! 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moyer could have pitched 20 innings and given up zero runs; one would still be reaching to state he was the reason the Indians did not win. Maybe Moyer benefited from some stellar D, maybe the bull pen pitched better the nights he pitched vs. Freddy Garcia, who had the same number of starts, lower ERA, but went 1–1. So from a statistical standpoint, one could argue that Garcia performed better, but perhaps the SEA offense did better the nights Moyer was pitching. The point is, it is speculation to say the reasons the Indians lost was due to one pitcher. Some nights the bats go cold no matter who's pitching...sometimes a starting pitcher benefits from a productive offense that night and gets a win whilst another night, a pitcher who pitched even better might end up with a loss because of various reasons. No one knows so to state it as fact is stretching it too far. Zepppep (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more recently as a member of the White Sox" : put in CHI section, or even put it towards the end of the article or perhaps lead
Moved to lead. Go Phightins! 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of Thome's trademarks are his high socks that he helped make popular again in the mid-'90s, at a time when players wore their pant cuffs down around their ankles and his batting stance in which he holds the bat out with his right hand and points it at right field before the pitcher comes set, a gesture he borrowed from "The Whammer" in the film The Natural" : run on; this is also possible info for the lead
Reworded, and moved to lead. Go Phightins! 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A decade after Thome had left the Indians" : if that far after, put in a different section
 Done Go Phightins! 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two World Series' in 1995 and 1997" : reader already aware, so look to remove it
 Done

"In the 2002 off-season, though the Indians, who had begun a massive rebuilding project, offered Thome a "generous contract" and even to build a statue, he instead went to Philadelphia, whom he felt was closer to winning a championship." : this sentence needs re-done

I changed it, not sure if it's better, let me know what you think. Go Phightins! 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""He'd" : "He had"
 Fixed
  • "$11 million per year with Philadelphia" : until recently, the article made it sound like he went to PHA b/c they were contenders but now this appears to suggest he went after more dough, so what's the reason? multiple reasons?
Presumably the Indians had offered a comparable salary in their new deal, but $8 million was what he'd been making. I'll see if I can adjust to make more clear. Go Phightins! 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done Go Phightins! 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reference section needs quite a bit of work:
  • Several missing access dates, publisher info., author, agency, etc.
Access dates: plus Added where applicable (e.g., not book references) Go Phightins! 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher info: plus Added what I could find--Go Phightins! 20:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author: plus Added what I could find--Go Phightins! 20:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several have titles capitalized, which should not be. Some are all lowercase whilst others are properly capitalized.
Again, examples would be helpful. Go Phightins! 20:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. 22, for example.
The title is directly copied from the article; don't we usually match what the article says? It came from the New York Times...Go Phightins! 01:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I can't recall where I read this but all caps should not be utilized for article titles or names of blogs, etc. Zepppep (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newspaper section need not be mentioned
I only saw one, which I fixed. Are there any others? Go Phightins! 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Counting on you to look and deal with any lingering ones.
  • Some publications are linkable whilst others are not. Generally speaking, publishers should not be made linkable.
 Working Go Phightins! 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For newspaper articles, if the location can't be discerned from the publication name then the location should be provided.
Any specific ones for this? I'm not seeing any in my first glance. Go Phightins! 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. 18, for example. No. 48.
  • "SI Vault" is not the name of a publication; it is the name of where one accesses archived SI's. "CNN/SI" is not the same of a publication.
    Should I remove CNN/SI altogether? Cite it as an AP roundup? I found them in CNN/SI's archives, but from simply reading the CNN/SI page, one can't really tell where they originally came from. Go Phightins! 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article appeared on SI.com only, and not the printed edition, then state so. If the name of the site is CNNSI.com, then state it. For the Albert Chen article, I see that the author's name is not mentioned, the title is incorrect, the date is incorrect, and information like pages, volume, issue, publisher, etc. is not mentioned. Zepppep (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chen article is  Fixed. Go Phightins! 01:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Go Phightins! 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Go Phightins! 02:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A fan favorite" : can be removed, since the next portion states that.
  • The first several sentences in the ChiSox sections needs sourced.
  • "Twenty-five members" : should be merged with previous paragraph.
  • "Oakland A's" : should be linked
  • The Dodger section needs expansion. Why did he stay with the team such a short time?
  • Ref no. 8: I don't see the author's name on the site.
  • Ref no. 9: some info is missing (agency, page no., "Powers" should not be capitalized as it's not in the original article)
  • Ref no. 10: agency and page no. info missing
  • Ref no. 11: publication name is "The New York Times"; should also be made linkable
  • Ref no. 12: missing page no. and agency (check and fill in gaps of remaining...I think you get the idea)
  • Zepppep (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "agency" in the context of sources? Not familiar with that being used in the context of source citing...Go Phightins! 04:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(See above, where Template:Cite news is mentioned)
Is it possible for something not to have a news agency? (e.g., ref 10 this article...I looked at the WP news agency page and the only familiar ones I see are AP and Reuters, neither of which is credited for this content, which is on the NY Times page. That said, it looks "AP-ish", but I don't want to credit it to them if it wasn't there's) Go Phightins! 05:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Got 10 and 11 mixed up, sorry about that. Go Phightins! 05:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just for clarification, "page number" would refer to the page from the newspaper (e.g., B10)? Just want to make sure I'm looking for the right things. Go Phightins! 04:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, page number from the original source. The more details about the source, the better. If the newspaper page no. has a hyphen (-), omit it. Zepppep (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've fixed the first four of your new suggestions and have slightly expanded the Dodgers section, though more can likely be done to that. Now to the fun part, the references :) Go Phightins! 05:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the abundance of questions; should the AP be linked every time it's the agency, or just the first? Go Phightins! 05:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've added the agency where appropriate. Go Phightins! 18:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agency would be treated like author. List the agency every time it is involved in the creation of the information. Sometimes there is an author and an agency, so would list both. Zepppep (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through and am not finding any and am not finding any that have an agency that isn't already noted. My question was whether or not Associated Press should be Associated Press every time, or just the first time. Go Phightins! 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(See below, where I mentioned no. 19. There could very well be others.) List the agency, not list and link. Just simply list the agency. Clear as mud? Zepppep (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear as mud. Thanks for your patience. I'll get on this when I have time, probably later tonight. Go Phightins! 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I believe, with everything but expanding the Dodgers section from this latest round. What else needs done? Go Phightins! 21:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some reference inconsistencies. No. 47 lists the "work" differently than others which use the same "work," and it also does not contain publisher info. Done--Go Phightins! 03:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Nos. 9, 16, 18, and 33 have a newspaper which is not linked. No. 49, I believe MLB.com would suffice, same with Nos. 31, 40, 57, etc. Fixed Go Phightins! 03:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC) No. 56, the newspaper is not linked. Fixed Go Phightins! 03:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC) No. 51, the location of the publication is not divulged. No. 23 is missing details (page no., issue no. and volume, date of the article, etc.). For No. 19, the "work" should be "ESPN.com" and made linkable; it also missing "agency" info and date (date is missing from No. 40 and several others). Zepppep (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single sentences in the lead should be worked into other paragraphs. The last section has some sentences that could be merged, as well.
  • Is he actually known by those nicknames by a relatively wide base, or just something that lasted a season or two or something announcers called him when they got bored of calling him by his name only? They should be referenced as well.
    • Here is a reference in which he's called the Thomenator. These nicknames don't appear elsewhere in the article, so the only logical place to cite them would be in the lead, however most articles don't have citations in the lead. Whaddya think? Note: this and this call him the Pride of Peoria. I'll be honest; I'm a life long Phillies fan and I'd never heard of either of the nicknames. They don't seem to be that widely used...would it be better to just remove them?
Citations can certainly be in the lead. The reason why relavtively few citations be may in the lead is a) the lead is a summary, so the details and sources backing up what is stated would be found in the body, b) unless the sentence is controversial, it would be considered very unlikely to be challenged, and again, the body would likely have expansion about whatever is mentioned in the lead. To the nicknames, if you're having trouble finding many sources stating a nickname, I would not mention them. I, personally, haven't heard him referenced him by these "nicknames." The Pride of Peoria and Thomenator, those are simply plays on his name perhaps by an on-air personality or an attempt at a colloquialism. I would doubt his "Mr. Incredible" had much usage at all, and likely very little staying power. Not every player has a true nickname. Zepppep (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Hall of Famer" before Reggie Jackson.

 Done

  • There are still instances of "RBI" when "RBIs" should be employed.

 Fixed where appropriate; RBI should still be used when it's singular, correct?

  • The homage to his mother should be referenced.
  • Remove the "..." associated with the Killebrew quote. Additionally, upon second reference, simply use his last name.
  • "Dodgers (4 for 17) should be "(4-for-17)"
  • The Twins section has some sentences that should be incorporated into paragraphs. Also, "On ____ (date)" is a tiresome way to begin four sentences (in a row, when considering the opening sentence of the next section). This is also an issue in the CHI section.
  • The Santana HR that won the CLE game can be removed. Knowing the outcome of that game is not particularly pertinent.
  • The Orioles section is a single paragraph. Look to break it up a bit.
  • Stating that Castrovince works for MLB.com is not particularly pertinent.
What's the reasoning on wanting to mention this particular author/source? Zepppep (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still have issue with the Moyer mention. Yes, he had 2 wins in the series but pinning CLE's loss at the hands of one pitcher is a bit of a stretch. If you feel it should remain as is, references would need to be provided backing up they lost due to one pitcher's performance in a few games.
  • The last paragraph of the first CLE section mentions "Thome" several times, as does the first few paras of the PHA section. Reduce this a bit.
  • There is at least one contraction still in use.
  • Zepppep (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with all, I believe--I rephrased the Moyer mention, if you still think it's unnecessary, I suppose I could remove it, I just think it's noteworthy if you lose to the same pitcher twice in a five game series. Go Phightins! 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • MLB is not explained upon first reference. Additionally, I would recommend noting he's a Major League Baseball player within the first sentence.
  • "Thome led Cleveland" and his 600th HR mention should be separated, considering the latter did not occur whilst in a Cleveland uniform and happened more than one decade after the 2nd WS appearance. One could very well argue Thome did not lead CLE to either of those WS appearances (he wasn't even an an All-Star in '95) so at the very least, "led" would need to be given some context. A lot of player articles state "led" but typically this would only be reserved for players who were statistical leaders, team captain, or something concrete and identifiable. Particularly since the nickname mentions are going to be removed from the lead, perhaps expansion of this "leader" role would add some needed length to the lead.
  • Zepppep (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the nicknames...This is the only mention of either of them I could find and I wouldn't exactly call that a reliable source.
  • Is that phrasing of the lead better? I tried to quantify his leadership of the 1997 team with stats and mentioned that he was only part of the team that went to the 95 WS. I am working on finding some instances of his leadership to add. Go Phightins! 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added that information on Thome's positive attitude to lead...should I add a "personality" section to the article to get into specific examples? There's a long feature in Sports Illustrated that gives info. on it. Go Phightins! 21:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention the years he went to the WS in the lead, and his '97 stats, but would remove Belle. Alternatively, you could mention he was part of a mid-90's CLE roster that included the likes of Belle, Lofton, Hershiser, etc. The last paragraph of the lead is a bit of a run-on, despite it's usage of a semicolon. Lastly, if the guy is known for his positive attitude, "unwavering" would be superfluous at best, peacocky at worst. Zepppep (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I changed unwavering to consistent...if you still think that's too much, I could just leave it at positive attitude. I changed the world series mentions in the lead to your second suggestion and rephrased what was a grammatically poor sentence. Go Phightins! 01:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good on that front. However, Lofton wasn't with CLE in '97. Also, the lead has several "which he won in ___." Might suggest putting the years he won those various awards in parentheses (also, as is, there is some inconsistent comma usage).
  • U.S. Cellular Field HR: was that ninth-longest at that time, or to-date? Clarify.
  • Zepppep (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's not the easiest thing to find online...it definitely was at the time, but as far as whether or not a home run (or more) longer than that have been hit since, I don't know. To play it safe, I changed it to "which at the time was the ninth longest home run in...". I removed Lofton and converted the "which he won in"s to parenthetical statements. Go Phightins! 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed some trivial and speculative mentions. I also did some copy editing throughout, some which were mentioned but not addressed, others which I only caught until just now. I seem to recall BAL bringing him over because they wanted some veteran experience for a club they were thinking was headed for the postseason. BAL did in fact make the playoffs, so something which mentions this is really all that's left. Once that's done, I'll pass it. Zepppep (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added a sentence with two refs about that; as for your failed verification tag, all I can find to support that Killebrew said that is this YouTube video, which shows him saying that. Not sure if there's a way that can be cited, but that's all I found. Go Phightins! 20:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a direct quote, it would need to be cited. If you can't find one, would recommend removing it. Zepppep (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! Found something, I added it. Here it is. That oughta do. Anything else? Go Phightins! 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AL high" to "AL-high"
  • There's a bare link in the last section. I just made some other changes to that section, FYI. Zepppep (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Early life section lists the same reference twice for the same sentence. I'm not sure if that's a typo or if another ref needs to be mentioned there?
  • I see he was drafted in '89 and then started playing for CLE in '91; are minors stats not available?
  • "league leading" and "league lead" ; a bit repetitive word play here.
  • Are there sources to support the statement about the '94 season and CLE wanting to perhaps turn their fortunes around; one could argue it's OR otherwise. The trades would also need to be sourced.
  • "Thome led the team with home runs and 73 RBIs" : I think this is missing the no. of HRs; also, what follows after the comma does not flow well with the preceding info. Perhaps make it its own sent.
  • "Their record was ten games better than the Braves" : I'm not sure what is trying to be done with this sentence. The result of the WS is shared before, then the regular season records are compared. Then, it is stated that the Braves had the second-best record in the league that year. I am guessing what is trying to be shown is that this was considered some type of upset, or CLE failed to achieve some sort of expectations? Who's expectations? Maybe the Braves had a worse record b/c they played in a tougher division. In addition to confusing, I would suggest just sticking to the facts.
  • In that paragraph as well as the 120 walks one, "league" is a bit ambiguous; if MLB is meant, state it. If AL, state it. Zepppep (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have concerns with "racked up"
  • Ref no. 8 an editor but it's not mentioned
  • His '99 regular season stats are mentioned after playoff mentions, whilst other paragraphs seem to mention regular season stats before playoff notes. Would probably look to be consistency with how this appears (and agree that regular season stats should be mentioned before playoff info.)
  • I see some variation of "power" has been used to mention a few of his HRs. I don't take issue with it in all instances, but the use of it for the Sept. 29 win is a bit much. How about "help" or "lead" or something a little less Superman-like? It's not clear to me what value the quote in that same paragraph has. And then right after it, the regular season comes to an end. Was CLE in some sort of playoff or wild card chase? If so, provide some context. Also, the way the paragraph starts off, it makes it look like 2000 was his last year with CLE; but in fact, the following season, the reader is told he's still in CLE. This is a bit confusing. Additionally, what does "the beginning of the end of Thome's tenure" really mean?
  • The 2003 reader poll should follow the 2001 contract details/departure. Additionally, is the reader poll sourced? I don't see one, and refs 21 and 22 don't appear to mention it.
  • Zepppep (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just finished making some additional ce edits. I'm still seeing issues with some of the references, which I've addressed before. The use of "Major League Baseball Advanced Media" is not consistent; additionally, sometimes the unnecessary "L.P." is added, as well. Neither is the write-up for "mlb.com" vs "MLB.com." Neither is the way the text appears, either italicized or not (such as refs 58 vs. 60). ESPN.com would be the work; ESPN Internet Ventures would be the publisher. ESPN is also not consistent; if it's ESPN.com, write it up that way. The publication is named "The New York Times" (I have just changed one of them); I see both "Baltimore Sun" and "The Baltimore Sun." The date format should be consistent; if it's going to be DD Month Year, so be it; if it's going to be Month DD Year, so be it; consistency is what we're looking for!
  • There are a few instances of inconsistency remaining. Sometimes MLB.com appears in italics, other times not. Other times it appears as "mlb.com." Not expecting perfection here but just a bit more consistency. Once that's done, I'll give it a pass. Zepppep (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed The italics issue was because sometimes MLB.com was listed as the work and other times the publisher; when it was listed as the publisher, I changed the parameter to work and added MLB Advanced Media as the publisher, and they now seem to be consistent. Go Phightins! 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just tended to a few more. It (both ref section and article) can continue to be worked on but strong enough for GA. Zepppep (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Thome/GA1&oldid=527198219"