Talk:Johnny Marcum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 16:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the backlog and gain points for the WikiCup. Although QPQ is by no means required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here.

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

Delink "Kentucky" per MOS:OVERLINK
Don't need to include AL and MVP acronyms in parentheses if the acronyms aren't used in the lede

Early life

I'm not sure the best way to rephrase it, but I don't love the according to Johnny phrase
- Tried "the athlete later recalled" Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early minor league career

This applies to all the date ranges herein: Per MOS:DATERANGE, we should use four-digit years when giving ranges in section headers (e.g. 1929–1930 instead of 1929–30). Very obscure MOS rule I only recently found out about myself

Dayton Aviators

Manager is linked in the lede but not here
I was trying to see if there were any newspaper articles that would clarify the "reports" with regard to his use in batting practice and the outfield, since the SABR article doesn't clarify. That proved fruitless, but I did find this from the Courier-Journal that talks about his pitching – might be nice to include! (and also, apologies for the difficulty of reading)
- Hahaha! Difficulty to read more than made up for by the colorful reporting. Why can't writers come up with similar descriptions today? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville Colonels

See above with the linking of manager
"Yet" → "Despite this,"
" were topped in the league only by" → "were third in the league, behind only"

Major league career

Philadelphia Athletics

Specify Earle Mack's role within the A's organization at the time
SABR article doesn't say he was hoping for more money by holding out in '35. This article from the Inquirer says nobody knew why he was MIA during spring training and that he might have been ill, but the salary issue is mentioned here (cont'd here and here (cont'd here
- Good research. Given that these are all from the same publication, and that the ambiguous article is from an earlier date, I'd assume that they later found out that salary was a part of it. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specify that he was called to pinch hit for the first game of said doubleheader
""invincible with men on base,"" → ""invincible with men on base"," per MOS:LQ

Boston Red Sox

"2 of his final 9" → "two of his final nine" per MOS:NUMERAL
"much better" → "much improved"
My reading of the source suggests that "hoped" is less accurate an assessment than "anticipated"
Don't have to link it since it was linked above, but I'd still write out "St. Louis Browns" in the last sentence

St. Louis Browns/Chicago White Sox

Similar to my note above, I'd write out John Whitehead since his full name wasn't mentioned since the A's section

Later minor league career

Toledo Mud Hens

Comma after "for second in the league", and maybe add "both behind"

Farming, last two seasons

Good

Career statistics

No comma needed after "bat at the plate"

Pitching philosophy

Good

Personal life

Use the conversion template for acres
Link "stroke"

References

Although not technically part of the GA criteria, more information for any source that's just a publication and date would be appreciated
- Right, and I usually try to do that. The story on those cites is that those are the ones in the SABR bio; no other information on them is provided. I cite them to better illustrate the variety of sources which support the research in the article; the drawback is that I don't have all the info on the publication. If that's ever a problem for you, let me know, and I can always just switch them with the SABR bio. Sort of a situation in which neither of the approaches is perfect. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Images are public domain and relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good, all common phrases and one direct quote

Putting on hold; as always, ping me with questions and let me know when you're finished! — Ghost River 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making those changes (and again for your patience, the past few days have not been kind to me). Regarding the use of sourcing and SABR, my ideal alternative would be to try to find a newspaper article through Newspapers.com that includes said information, which I acknowledge might be difficult; otherwise, using the SABR and the story SABR cites is fine. For now, passing said article, and let me know if you'd ever like help hunting down paper scraps. — Ghost River 15:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]