Jump to content

Talk:Rickey Henderson/good article attempts

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

If you want to keep a separate GA archive, it should be noted in the archive box and the text should also be properly archived in the standard sequential archives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This archive lists all the GA attempts for the Rickey Henderson article:

October GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): checkY - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused): checkY - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'm going to have to fail this. It's generally accepted that there be at least one inline citation per paragraph, there are large sections that go without them. Plus, there are some quotes are aren't cited. There only being 3-4 sentences in the minor league sections is iffy, and it's very geared towards post-2000. I'd like to see all this fixed. Wizardman 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Feb. 2008

[edit]

Article fails for same reason as previous review. Article needs many more references. The lead can also use some improvement and expansion. See Wikipedia:Lead section.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree with the lead section improvement. Currently, it is concise and accurate; it gives a perfect encyclopedic introduction of the article's topic. Timneu22 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree as well. And no, it does not need additional references. Rather - Where? 49 references is more than enough. Saying this needs more references, is like saying Heuschrecke 10, a current good article, has no references. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as well. More references? There's 49. New England Patriots is a Featured Article and it only has six.   jj137 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this. I was too hard on the lead and I'll take that back as a reason for failure although I still think it can be approved. The intro guidelines say that articles greater than 30K character should be 2-3 paragraphs. As for the referencing, I have to stand by my original claim. There is simply too many places that lack footnotes. The number of footnotes in an article doesn't speak to meeting article quality. Comparing one GA to another doesn't always work to establish what is right as every article is different and articles change. The New England Patriot example you gave is currently under discussion to have its featured article status revoked. There is a unified view among the editors that the article no longer meets quality standards.
Having an article listed as a Good article is very difficult and most articles fail, 1 in 12 one editor said. The article's failure doesn't mean its a bad article or that the article's content and breadth of information isn't excellent, it just means that some of the finer details of wikipedia policy are not addressed. Even some of the articles I have approved I now think are questionable. I read over the article again and I have a few suggestions. First, wikipedia layout and style guidelines generally frown on short sections. Secondly, there are a few instances in the article where the article needs to let fact speak for themselves and where Wikipedia:Words to avoid need to be removed. These are some of the most common errors on Wikipedia. These two issues would by themselves lead to the article failing GA review. If have any questions in these regard, please feel free to message me on my talk page. I am more and willing to help you make this a good article. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a good point - I probably shouldn't have compared articles simply based on total number of references. I will add more references and try to expand the lead section to about three paragraphs, and go through the article again and revise it thoroughly so that, hopefully, this can eventually become a GA. Thanks for your help.   jj137 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When this article has been up for GA and the reviewer says "needs references", there is never a clear indication as to where. Can you add relevant {{fact}} tags so the article can be properly addressed? Timneu22 (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the tags. Sorry it took so long. I guess I needed to watch this page instead of the article. Note on the lists on the bottom of the page that I put a citation at the bottom of the section. I'm assuming one source will reference the whole list. Basically, there needs to be a footnote at the end of each paragraph that backs up what is stated. Also, as I went through, I did notice instances where let fact speak for themselves was an issue. You can't say he had a respectable season or a good season. You can either state some numbers and allow people to draw their own conclusions or you provide a source for the claim although the later suggestion might still run into problems depending on a reviewers interpretation of the rules or the instance where it is used.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the lead section guidelines, the lead we need to be 3-4 paragraphs. The lead is currently very informative. I think three paragraphs would do just fine. See Wikipedia:Lead section.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The miscellaneous list will need to be integrated into the article under the Wikipedia:Embedded list guidelines. The other lists might possibly be added to the text or maybe given a fancier chart, but I don't know how to do that and it would be okay with me if the other lists stayed. Still, if you could find any way to improve the lists from looking at the guidelines, that would be great.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The layout guidelines state that one sentence paragraphs and short sections should be minimized. These are a few examples. The minor league section might be combined into the early years. The one sentence after later years might be removed. I think some remodeling needs to be done to the Idiosyncrasies section, perhaps eliminating the short subheadings would do the trick. Also, the line in the Olerud section "One widely reported story, however, is by all accounts a fabrication" needs to remodeled. However is listed on the words to avoid. As it reads currently, it introduces a viewpoint. Maybe mention the accounts that discredit the story, that would take care of this issue. Furthermore, while I was looking at the reference section, I noticed several footnotes with www.________. I also saw new footnotes from the same source. Each source should have only one footnote number. If formatted correctly, there will be a bunch of letters next to the source. In short, the citations need to follow Wikipedia:Citing sources. The easiest way to get this done is to look at examples from some of wikipedia's highly rated articles. And, just wondering, who were the five people Henderson was traded for in the 1980's?User:calbear22 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement update/recap

[edit]

1. Lead: According to the lead section guidelines, the lead we need to be 3-4 paragraphs. The lead is currently very informative. I think three paragraphs would do just fine. See Wikipedia:Lead section

 Question: What are you asking here exactly? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs to be at least 3 paragraphs because that is what the guidelines require.User:calbear22 (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Lists: The miscellaneous list will need to be integrated into the article under the Wikipedia:Embedded list guidelines. The other lists might possibly be added to the text or maybe given a fancier chart, but I don't know how to do that and it would be okay with me if the other lists stayed. You could also add these other lists to the info box (perhaps best option).

checkY Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Layout:The layout guidelines state that one sentence paragraphs and short sections should be minimized. These are a few examples. The minor league section might be combined into the early years. The one sentence after later years might be removed. I think some remodeling needs to be done to the Idiosyncrasies section, perhaps eliminating the short subheadings would do the trick.

4. Citations: There is still a lot of problems. The ones you added recently are terrific, but the early ones need improvement. Combine 8 and 10. Add more information for that source. 16 needs more info. 17, 18, 27, 29, 34, have web addresses listed instead of correct article link. 30 and 16 need to be combined. 35, 42, 43, 48, 54, 55, 57, 70, 71, and 73 needs more info. There might be some other doubles that need to be combined too.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I think.   jj137 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the numbers I listed need to be improved. The numbers probably changed now. So look out for references that have www.___ addresses and ones without authors, publishers, date of publication, or access date.User:calbear22 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now. Some don't list date of publication, so it is impossible.   jj137 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Just list as much info as is available.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Under the coverage criterion, it would seem appropriate for there to be a chart of Henderson's stats. I put this out as an option for further improvement, not to influence GA review.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might add this later, but I don't think it is a priority. Additionally, since he played for almost 30 years, it would take up a lot of space! :)   jj137 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with stats on wiki pages. In fact, I don't even think Wikipedia's policy allows it. Why would we list 30 years of stats when there are so many other sources that have this information? Timneu22 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean that there should be no stat charts. The pages of Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds both have stat charts. This is optional though. Not a part of GA review.~~
I don't think those articles should have stat charts. You can find stats anywhere. Why not just provide a link to a reliable stat site? Timneu22 (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. There is no 100% followed standard. I defer to others on this topic.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2

[edit]

1. References. All references need to be formated correctly with author, title, publication date, web address, access date (if none is given, just put today's date).

2. [1] is listed in the external links category. Use the sports writers writing (not the blog comments) and add the information from the article to the Rickey Henderson page. Then, remove the external link from the list.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned up the intro a little more. I don't think it gets any better than where it is right now. I'll skim through the rest to see if anything else needs to be tweaked. Timneu22 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks pretty good now. I think we need an image or something in the retirement section. Timneu22 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
  • {{FailedGA|20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)}}
  • {{FailedGA|July 9, 2007}}
  • {{FailedGA|November 1, 2007}}

Status?

[edit]

So where do you think this stands now? It's hard to know with various lists and such. Is there a single checklist now? Thanks again for the work! Timneu22 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting pretty close.

There are still a few references that need to be fully formatted (author, publisher, date, date accessed, etc when possible).

There are a few references to blogs (at least I say a few to blogspot) and comments boards (snopes.com message board) that need to be replaced with other sources. In the case of the snopes.com, why not get a citation for the NY post article?

I'm concerned about the section "Illeism, malapropism and anecdotes." I'm going to ask for a peer review. We'll see what they have to say about the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA april log

[edit]

Apologies for not simply putting this article on hold, but I feel as though the problems here are substantive and will likely take more than a few days.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

As you can see, most of the problems exist in the prose. The main problem, and the most glaring is the often unobjective and unencyclopedic tone. To bullet points:

  • The first paragraph, and really the whole lead, spells this POV out. The lead should establish the entire topic, not be a run down of everything great Henderson ever did.
    The lead was said to be "too short." So we expanded it. Now it's a run-down of everthing? There is no consistency in the GA reviewers. What are the GA standards for this? Timneu22 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shortness was a major problem and we did good to fix that. I tried to guide the intro to improvement, and despite the reviewers concerns, the intro and the whole article have really improved. I'm sorry I didn't catch more of these issues and I'll try to help, so don't give up.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the guideline for it comes from WP:LEAD. While users can interrupt it differently, I guess, to quote it:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." I think it does a good job of establishing notability, and giving context. But I'm not sure if it totally explains controversy or could stand alone as its own article. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good example of how you want the lead to look would be Lee Smith (baseball). While he also had a great career, it does not go straight to the achievements or the numbers. It summarizes who he played for and when, says why he is notable, and then gives a short overview of his career is two good, solid paragraphs. Your current length is fine, but the coverage could be improved. SorryGuy  Talk  17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contest your assessment of the lead at all. I just think that despite the current leads limitations, it is actually an improvement from what was there before.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, you are probably right. I do like the current version though. It could probably still use some work, but it is a far more neutral, general overview of the topic. SorryGuy  Talk  16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current revision is the best yet. I agree with 208 — it's not notable to put Oakland High School in the lead. The quote from Bill James is a powerful thing and gives instant credibility. It definitely belongs in the intro. Timneu22 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have for now. Best of luck with this article in the future, SorryGuy  Talk  04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I GIVE UP. Timneu22 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rickey_Henderson/good_article_attempts&oldid=1142444657"