Talk:Lou Gehrig/GA review

Good Article Reviews

June 2007

GA failed

I'm sorry but the article needs more citations, there are whole sections without citations see Michael Jordan or Adam Gilchrist for featured article sports bios. This shouldn't take long though since the information should probably be easy to find online. Trevor GH5 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not saying it should be as good as those articles since they're FAs but the referencing should be close. Trevor GH5 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see why the article might have missed the cut. There were some factual errors in the article. For example, it said that the five year waiting period was waived for Gehrig's HOF eligibility. There was no five-year eligibility rule until 1954! There wasn't even a one-year waiting period until 1946. Gehrig himself was named on 22% of the ballots in 1936, when he was still active and on the top of his game. Gehrig would almost certainly have been elected in the regular 1939 election, but the committee didn't want to rely on "almost" because Lou's time was running out and the subject of a "waiting period" was a contentious one. (Some writers enforced their own personal rule by withholding their ballots for recently retired players. Jimmy Foxx retired after the 1945 season, and was eligible in 1947, but was not elected until 1951). Fearing that Gehrig might not immediately clear the 75% hurdle, the BBWAA held a special election at the 1939 Winter Meetings in Cincinnati, specifically to elect Gehrig. Nobody else was on that ballot, and the numerical results have never been made public.

April 2008

Quick good article check

Spending a brief 2 minutes to look over the article, I noticed that there are some areas of the article that needs footnotes. There should be at least one footnote at the end of each paragraph. It would help the article pass review if this issue was addressed before more formal review. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you again Calbear22. I will take care of this ASAP. Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And there are numerous non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Name one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• There's a problem with one of the citations added yesterday (ref #22 at the moment): the link to J.H. Davis, American Journal of Trial Advocacy has an invalidly formed URL. I'd fix it myself but a diligent search was unavailing. JGHowes ^talk - 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a few other problems with the article. In the introduction, the last sentence is a viewpoint concerning is popularity and the sentence can be more neutrally stated. The opening lead would be much improved if it drew from the whole article instead of focusing only on his statistics. The part concerning the details of Ripkin's record isn't needed. The section that lists "other distinctions" is a list that should be integrated into the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you concerning the details of Ripken's streak subsequent to breaking Gehrig's record, it's now edited out. But I really don't see the last sentence of the Lead as pov or cruft. It is a factual statement that Gehrig was elected overwhelmingly in 1999 to the All-Century team. JGHowes ^talk - 02:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I took care of it. The problem wasn't the fact that he was elected, but what came before the sentence that part. It said, something to the effect, that Gehrig remains popular among baseball fans as evident by... I removed that part because the fact that he was elected, and received one of the highest vote totals speaks for itself. It's really sort of minor.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review: Hold

Several issues to address:

1. Introduction- Needs to pull more from all areas of the article. See WP:Lead.

 Fixed expanded opening paragraph for more comprehensive summary/overview.

2. Some references need clean up: more citations including access date, title, etc. Some references show the web addresses. These addresses need to be linked.

3. NPOV problems throughout the article. Most obviously from using WP:Words to avoid but also from some adjectives. WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves needs to be addressed throughout the article.

4. Layout: The section "other distinctions" should be integrated into the article or changed into a paragraph of some sort. See WP:Embedded list.

I'm also going to ask for a second opinion. I'm not sure if the large number of quotes in the article, the largely statistical nature of the Major League Baseball career section works, or the large amount of detail given to certain sentimental events in Gehrig's career is okay.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For Good Article status, I believe that the article summarizes Gehrig's career well. In many articles on athletes, much of the information is statistical, and I have never seen this considered a problem. As for the sentimental events, they are how Gehrig is best remembered, so I don't see that the discussion is a problem. I hope this helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. That sounds fine with me, so the other issues 1-4 just need to be addressed.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've reworded the Lead, per above JGHowes ^talk - 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Update GA review

1. 4 was completed, but 1-3 still need to be addressed.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I also feel the need to mention that Image:Babelou.jpg and Image:Gehrig time.jpg do not have proper fair use rationales (they have boilerplate templates, but these specifically state that a fair use rationale template is also needed), and I don't believe that either is small enough to be considered low resolution (certainly not Babelou.jpg). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've addressed the Lead (#1, above) and incorporated appropriate FURs for these images. As to the size, they are cropped and do meet NFCC size limit < 600px. JGHowes ^talk - 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GAR update 6/15/2008

Remaining issues:

WP:NPOV

Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

WP:Words to avoid

Overview: The lead better incorporates the article, check one. But 2-3 haven't been completed. The problem we have here is simple to articulate but hard to eradicate. The article is simply too pro-Gehrig. Being pro-Gehrig isn't like being pro-Bush or some other politician, negative information doesn't need to be added. How the information is presented is the problem. This is a major problem that sunk pushing the Rickey Henderson article past GAR. I reviewed that article but it took another editor to catch that problem before it was unearthed and I simply cannot let this issue slip by me again.

Examples: Intro, "remembered for prowess as a slugger." Early life "Babe Ruth christened the new stadium with a home run." Major League Baseball Career, "Gehrig established himself as a bona fide star in his own right despite playing in the shadow of Ruth for two-thirds of his career."

It's tough: It is very difficult for us not to state the conclusion (Gehrig's greatness) of the facts when those facts so obviously point to it. But, we have to because one of the most important subpoints of NPOV is letting the facts speak for themselves. Just as is listed in the example, we can no more state that Hitler was madman anymore then we can say Gehrig was great.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Calbear, eloquence or good writing is not necessarily Peacock, Avoid, or pov, if it's factually reporting the sourced facts. Is "Babe Ruth christened the new stadium with a home run" any more pov than "Babe Ruth hit the first home run at the new stadium"? Or "remembered for prowess as a slugger" than "got the most fan votes (in 1999) for his hitting records"? As WP:TPA says, A "perfect Wikipedia article...is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone". JGHowes ^talk - 14:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Using words like christen and prowess take away from the encyclopedic tone and is less natural. Ruth hit the first home run is what happened. When it's stated that he christened the new stadium, it invokes Christ and associates Christ with Ruth. The facts speak for themselves.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA Nomination

A few editors have written to me over the last month concerning the status of the article. I have rewritten my list of article needs several times. Over the last 3 or more weeks, the article has not made major strides towards fixing the issues I have listed. Normal guidelines dictate a 7 day limit on holds and that guideline has long since past. I therefore must fail the article for the above (a few sections above) concerns. I don't think there is agreement on my critic and I think it might be appropriate to submit the article to reassessment if anyone feels I have made a mistake in some way. I'm sorry for the daily but I know failing the article will actually do more to get the ball rolling then leaving it on hold.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)