Talk:Philip Humber's perfect game/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 16:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this one a look as well, just because. Probably tonight, but maybe in a day or so since you said no rush. As a preliminary note, however, sources #11 and #30 are dead. Canadian Paul 16:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 replaced. Looking for 30--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 swapped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

Essentially none of the information in the lead is in the body and vice-versa, a violation of WP:LEAD, as the lead must summarize the contents of the body and no new information should be included in the lead that isn't present in the body.
I have moved everything from the LEAD to the main body that was not already in the body. I will summarize this in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have summarized the article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Background", first paragraph, "Ironically his mound opponent, Blake Beavan, was a 2007 Texas high school player of the year. Beavan threw a quality start for Seattle." Aside from the fact that this isn't ironic, that statement seems a little bit POV to me. Additionally, I don't really feel that this qualifies as "background" for the game, since it happened during for the game so, if Beavan's quality start is important to the article, it should be moved to another section.
I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about this, so it's not really a GA issue, but the second paragraph of "Background" is fairly inaccessible to anyone not familiar with baseball. For example, a casual fan may not understand what is meant by "Humber stayed on his pitching schedule by throwing on the side."
addressed by RedSoxFan2434 (talk · contribs) with these edits. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Background", third paragraph, "The New York Mets did not have a no-hitter through their first 51 seasons." It hasn't yet been mentioned that Humber was a former member of the Mets in the article, so this statement seems completely irrelevant at first read and really disrupts the flow. The whole "Background" section is a bit choppy and reads more like "fact after fact" rather than a narrative flow, but this is the most jarring part.
addressed by RedSoxFan2434 (talk · contribs) with these edits. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the purpose of those block quotes and they don't appear to add anything to the encyclopedic quality of the article. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content we should be limiting non-free content as much as possible and, if these quotes can't be justified, they should be removed.
Are you of the belief that the blockquotes are from published or paywalled sources? On what grounds is the content non-free?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm more concerned about what the purpose of the quotes is. There are probably dozens of free pictures of Humber, but we wouldn't include every last one in the article, only as many as would enhance the article by providing visually informative content. Similarly, a blocked-out side quote must enhance an article in some way to justify an article. I'm not certain what the purpose of the quotes are, they seem a little incongruous with the article content, but I'm not difficult to convince otherwise. If they can be justified for inclusion, then their "free" status is irrelevant (after all, it's only two quotes). Canadian Paul 21:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are unique and about his feelings on this achievement. I think they are on point. I am only worried about what section they belong in. I think the one in the first section should be in the third section. Other than that, I don't see an issue, since they are (free) quotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Media reception" section is essentially a bulleted list of facts that has been compressed into a paragraph. It needs to replace the "fact after fact" style with a narrative flow.
I have tried to rearrange it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More of a curiosity than a GA point, but what's the reason for the "Previous no-hitter experience" section a) not being a subsection of the "Background" section and b) going (more or less) in reverse chronological order? I don't think everything always has to be chronological, but there should be a good reason to do it differently. Also in this section, the phrase "flirted with a no-hitter" is used twice in one paragraph. Perhaps there would be a better way to restate this later on to avoid the repetition?
Moved to background chronologically.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of completeness, and I'm very open to discussion on this one based on the types of sources that are available, I feel like the article is lacking in some aspects. For example, in the "Background" section, I don't think that it would be excessive to have at least a paragraph on Humber summarizing who he is and any high points of his career. Similarly, is there anything that can be said about the game itself other than the final inning? Obviously you don't have to go through it batter by batter, but in today's world of play-by-play sports coverage, surely there are more highlights to mention as the game went on?
Regarding a perfect game, the last out is always of importance, especially in this case because of the nature of the call. Usually, the only other outs of the 27 the pitcher records that really matter are the ones that were almost hits, except that a fielder made a great play to prevent the batter from reaching base. Like in Mark Buehrle's perfect game, the catch made by Dewayne Wise. I'll read the recaps to see if there was anything like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it's already mentioned that the closest a batter got to a hit was Dustin Ackley. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this article is fairly far away from GA Status at this time, however, I'm willing to give it a chance on a seven day hold if it is believed that the necessary improvements can/will be made in that time. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Once these concerns have been dealt with, I will review the article again and point out additional changes needed to comply with Wikipedia's Good Article criteria. Canadian Paul 23:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's some collaboration going on with this article - that's good! Whenever it is requested that I take another look at the article, someone please leave an explicit message to that effect underneath the comments. Canadian Paul 21:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing deficits and ways to improve on them. I think TTT and anyone else helping can get this up to code. I'll let you know when I have a question. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, what do you think of the changes I've just made? How's the layout? – Muboshgu (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a fresh look now and update the review. Canadian Paul 20:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is certainly improved. In terms of layout, I think that it addresses a lot of my earlier concerns. It seems that all of my previous points have been addressed, although I'll take a closer look at the introduction and prose flow once I do a proper review. Regarding #5, I'm still not 100% on the quotes, but that seems a bit outside of the scope of GA, so there's no need to drag out discussion on that. #8 seems alright now, a good balance of detail. So at this point the citation tags need to be addressed, but it looks like you added them, so you know that already. I'll give it another copyedit when you're ready too. Canadian Paul 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation tags are addressed. I think we're ready for another run through. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went through it and did a copyedit, but it looks like it is ready for GA Status! "The game was broadcast on Fox, with Mariners' broadcaster Dave Sims and Eric Karros on the call and its duration was two hours, seventeen minutes" in the first paragraph under "The game" might be improved with a citation, but overall I do not believe that falls in the realm of "material likely to be challenged", as it is fairly intrinsic to the event, so it's fine for now. Therefore, I will be passing the article. Congratulations and thanks to all for their hard work. Canadian Paul 16:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]