Talk:Ozzie Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

I'm not really that great with pictures, but this one will not do. Can someone fix this? Topher0128 06:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note before someone reviews it for GA Status

Can the lead be expanded? With an article this size, it should be around two paragraphs rather than two sentences. I'll do the GA review for it latr if I have time, that's just something for you to handle until someone gets around to this. Wizardman 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC):

I appreciate the heads-ups. I'll see what I can do to try and add to it. Monowi 08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor fixes needed?

I've managed to fix a few of the concerns from the GA Review, and I went through the article and changed the mentions of "Ozzie" to "Smith" in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. I left the mentions of "Ozzie" alone in the "Before the Big Leagues" section to avoid confusion. One other thing I was wondering, though: Referring to the Cardinals as the "Cards" doesn't seem right. Should this be fixed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the revisions; it's much appreciated. Good point about the instances of "Ozzie" and the shorthand "Cards" usage for references to the Cardinals; both are remnants of the first cracks I had at adding the information to the article, and I haven't had the chance to clean that up yet. I'll definitely change all the "Cards" to Cardinals, and take a look at the usage of "Ozzie" before I try to fix the remaining GA status issues. Monowi (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold at this time until the following issues are addressed:

1. Image:Ozzie Smith.jpg-The image needs a more detailed fair use rationale that states that the image is specifically for use in the article Ozzie Smith. You should probably also mention that the image is being used because no free alternative has been found yet. Done Monowi (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
2. "Nicknamed "The Wizard of Oz"..." "The Wizard of Oz" doesn't need to be bolded. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Inline citations go directly after the punctuation with no space in between. Go through the article and fix all occurrences. Done Monowi (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
4. "Ozzie's mother was an especially influential part of his life who stressed the importance of education, and encouraged Ozzie to pursue his dreams." This needs an inline citation. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
5. "When he wasn't down at the local YMCA or playing ball of some kind..." Instead of "playing ball", consider using "playing sports". Done Monowi (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
6. "(he never caught it, but got close many times)" This statement probably isn't necessary for including in the article. Done phrase removed Monowi (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
7. "However, reality hit home during the summer of 1965, as the 10-year old Smith and his family found themselves in the middle of the Watts Riots." Reword this, since "in the middle of the riots" is used in the quote right after it, which sounds repetitive. Done Monowi (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
8. "Living in L.A., Ozzie was naturally a LA Dodgers fan, and he would ride the bus for nearly an hour to get to Dodger Stadium, attending about 25 games a year." Remove "naturally", and add source for going to games. Done Monowi (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
9. "Gottlieb took out a help-wanted ad in the San Diego Union" "San Diego Union" should be italicized. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
10. "But with the Padres' distaste for Smith's agent Gottlieb boiling, McKeon was now eager to deal." Reword this sentence to be more encyclopedic. Done Monowi (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
11. "Herzog's newly assembled team roared into first place with a 12-game win streak" Find another word to use instead of "roared"  Done Monowi (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
12. "No one exemplified this style of baseball more than Ozzie." This needs to be reworded or removed, since it does sounds POV. If someone said this, then add an inline citation. Same goes for "it's no wonder" and "fit perfectly" in the statement: "With excellent speed on the basepaths, his Gold Glove worthy defense, and aptitude for hitting line drives and ground balls at the plate, it's no wonder Ozzie fit perfectly into Herzog's team and strategy." Done Monowi (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
13. "Smith and his wife Denise soon offered to let Willie stay at their home instead of a hotel, cementing a friendship that endures today." This sentence probably isn't necessary for inclusion in the article unless you can state a reason for inclusion here. Done phrase removed Monowi (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
14. "But when it mattered most, Ozzie rose to the occasion." Remove this sentence or reword. Done Monowi (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
15. "Ozzie's best defensive play in a Cardinal uniform" Add a source for "best defensive play". Done reworded line by citing a direct quote of the play being "eye-popping" from the reference now used for this sentence. Monowi (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
16. "Smith's greatest season came in 1987" Greatest should be reworded. Done Monowi (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
17. "GQ magazine" GQ needs to be italicized. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
18. "Ozzie's place in St. Louis was never in doubt" Need source if this was said by him or another person. Done removed phrase in question, and reworded sentence to simply state he remained in St. Louis Monowi (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
19. "two week long illness" Add a hyphen between week long. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
20. "But by 1994, the injury bug was staring to plague Ozzie." Reword. Done Monowi (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
21. "then sat out a large portion of 1995 after having shoulder on May 31," Having shoulder what?  Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
22. "To this day, Smith holds the record for the most assists by a major league shortstop with 621, and the record for the most at-bats without hitting a grand slam." Needs inline citation for both stats. Done added both references, but moved mention of the assist record to the "Padres" section Monowi (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job on fixing the lead, and please address the above issues within seven days, and I'll pass the article. If the issues are not addressed, then I will fail the article, where it then can by renominated once the issues are addressed. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Also, I'm going on a wikibreak until Sunday, so there may be a delay before I look over the corrections/pass the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Since the above issues were addressed, I have passed this article as a good article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What Pic should be used for the Infobox

I recently noticed that the picture in the Infobox was reverted from the free-use image of Ozzie in a business suit that I uploaded awhile back to the old picture under copyright of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I'd like to explain my rationale for using the picture of Ozzie dressed up in a suit for the Infobox. I realize that while having a pic of Ozzie from his playing days would be ideal, no such free-use image is currently available on either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. The free-use image I uploaded makes it easy to recognize what he looks like, so I thought it would be appropriate for the Infobox. I've been working towards turning this article into a Feature Article, but this article will not qualify for that lofty status if the copyrighted Hall of Fame picture is used.

The main question is; should the free-use picture or the copyrighted Hall of Fame picture be used for the Infobox? I would very much like to hear other opinions on this matter. Thanks, Monowi (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will revert the Infobox picture back to the free-use image within the week. Monowi (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. If anyone objects to my proposal to free the dates of autoformatting in the main text in a day or two on a trial basis, please say so below. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just our millions of readers; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

Critically, since I’m an FAC reviewer, I want to state in unequivocal terms that whether or not contributors object to this proposal will have absolutely no bearing on my review or declaration at FAC. I’m proposing the action because FAC is an influential process, not because nominators might feel under obligation—they shouldn’t. Tony (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this proposal; if you can take care of it, by all means go for it. Monowi (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

advice, please

Can someone advise me as to the purpose of the "by" year templates in the infobox? They seem to render the year ... um. Tony (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see: it enables auto-calculations of batting averages, etc. The pity is that these templates all render dates as autoformatted. Can't be helped at the moment, but will need to be addressed globally later. Thanks. Tony (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for potential entrepreneurship section

I'm considering adding a paragraph about Ozzie's entrepreneurship ventures, but I'd like to hear any ideas about 1.) what specifically to include in it, and 2.) where exactly in the article it should go. Most importantly, I'm pretty short on references about his business ventures, so any weblinks or printed source material anyone could list in this post would be a big help. Thanks, Monowi (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to adding a three sentence paragraph about his business ventures, which includes the addition of two new references to the article. I think this addition adequately covers that aspect of his post-retirement career. Monowi (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stolen bases

According to List_of_Major_League_Baseball_leaders_in_career_stolen_bases, he is not 20th (though probably 20 ish) Danomagnum (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; the Wiki article you mention above uses Baseball Reference as its source, which differs from the MLB.com rankings currently cited in Ozzie's article. If you notice in the stats section, his offensive rankings are described as "all-time MLB rank." I used MLB.com's official stolen bases rankings, meaning that the pre-1900 baseball players on the Baseball Reference list are not included. You do raise a good point though; maybe it would be easier to eliminate the rankings alltogether, thereby eliminating the need for maintenance and avoiding potentially contentious issues like the ones you pointed out above.Monowi (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

After putting the issue of including stat rankings up for comment on WP:Baseball's talk page, it's my conclusion that it's better to remove the career rankings for multiple reasons, including less article maintenance, and avoiding confusion about different website having different rankings. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the level 2 heading "Biography" necessary?

While this article was being nominated for its third FAC, User:Levineps inserted "Biography" as the Level 2 heading at the start of the article. My question is, "Is this change necessary?" I don't understand how this edit is useful; the entire article really is his bio, and other Featured baseball Articles, such as Lee Smith (baseball), refrain from inserting a "Bio" heading, and instead use the "Early Life" and team-named sections (like "St. Louis Cardinals", etc.) Monowi (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Ozzie's HOF speech online?

Is there a written online copy or transcript of Ozzie's Baseball Hall of Fame induction speech that anyone can find? I thought the baseball hall of fame's website used to have a copy posted, but I can't find it anymore. I'd love to be able to use it as a reference and maybe pull a quote from it. Thanks, Monowi (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I discovered that Ozzie's HOF webpage now has a link to the video of his entire induction speech. Hopefully it will stay accessible for a long time, but a big thanks goes how to the Baseball Hall of Fame for making that video available! Monowi (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping making this Featured content

I'd like to extend a heartfelt thanks to everyone who has helped turn this article from a B-Class article that didn't do Ozzie justice, into an example of what a Wikipedia article about a HOF MLB player should be. I'd especially like the record to note I appreciate the editors who took time out of their busy lives to help with the GAN review, multiple peer reviews, and all the pros who helped in the FAN process. It's been a long year & half journey to get here, but it was definetely worth it. I'm so glad it's Featured, I just may do a backflip ;) Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Should article mention Ozzie's recent increased involvement with the Cardinals?

As the article currently reads, it contains a snippet where Ozzie went on record as saying he would limit his involvement with the Cardinals as long as Tony La Russa was manager of the team. However, with the recent flurry of All-Star related events in St. Louis, is it warranted taking a second look at how that portion of the article is phrased? Do other wiki editors believe Ozzie is more involved with the team, evidenced by such things as Opening Day appearances in 2008 & 2009, coaching the 2009 MLB Futures Game, an autograph appearance at Busch Stadium I heard about earlier in 2009, Ozzie Smith bobblehead day at Busch Stadium later this year...etc. I'd love to hear other opinions on this matter. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to Mr. Smith on recent article vandalism

On behalf of the entire Wikipedia community, and especially on behalf of WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals, I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize to Ozzie Smith for the recent vandalism on his article percipitated by User:Franco7. I can only imagine the shock and horror Mr. Smith or any of his friends and relatives might have had at seeing him listed as deceased on Aug. 25, 2009, when in fact such an incident did not occur. I would like Mr. Smith to know that dedicated Wikipedia editors such as myself battle everyday against this kind of vandalism, and that we have little to no tolerance for such egregious actions. While the offending edits were on the page for what appears to be less than two hours, I could understand that might be little comfort for any living person with a Wiki article who could have libelous information posted about them on a whim. Again, my sincere apologies to Mr. Smith that this occurred at all. Sincerely, Monowi (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This article defines its audience

I am a layman I don't know anything about baseball. But this article is featured as being one of the best on this site. I read it and only partly understand the life of this player because it's written by people who are writing for themselves not a general audience. It's full of expressions that only baseball fans would understand, such as:

'postseason berth'

'multiple offensive categories'

'non-roster invitee'

'Smith contributed a triple during the series'

If the intent of this article to please baseball fans then it means that those who write it are pandering to the established parameters recognised by its audiences. In other words it is biased. Is the intent to put it on the front page of the English Wikipedia to a) show how good it is, or b) to actually contribute to a resource of knowledge (as to Wikipedia's claims)? If I do not understand parts of it, how can I be certain that what I have also read is a fair assessment of this player's career? OK it has sources but how many sources should be in an article to make it balanced? Only the people writing it can determine this. But it seems that this article was produced by only like-minded people so that means that any agreement is without debate and any debate is seen as conflict. This means who is "watching the detectives" i.e. who checks the checkers? With that corollary Mr Wales current plea for money, is slightly hollow because who is really benefiting? The average lay person or editors who like to get kudos on this site. If articles like this are going to appear on the front page they should be accessible to all and not just certain interested parties in the English-speaking world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.61 (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I have concerns that the main image on this article, File:Ozzie Smith 1983.jpg, is in fact a scan. I've cast about the net looking for the original, and haven't been able to find it. However, if you look at this image full size, and zoom in, there are tell tale signs this was scanned from a printed source. Look, for example, around his eyes. I've reviewed some of the uploads from the original uploader, and have similar concerns about some of the other uploads as well. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)