Jump to content

Talk:Roger Peckinpaugh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRoger Peckinpaugh has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 23, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
September 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 12, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Roger Peckinpaugh set a World Series record for errors?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger Peckinpaugh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. When I get a chance, I'll do some more research. Your GA reviews are among the most thorough I've seen. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At times the Bisons have been the minor league affiliate for the Indians. Were they the minor league affiliate for them at the times at issue here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WP:LEAD should link to the specific world series teams (19YY team season), piped of course.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Professional career
We need a personal section

All images need {{personality rights}}--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am FAILing this article due to lack of breadth. When I look at Baseball-reference I can see he has led the league a few times in reasonable important stats and had a bunch of top ten finishes. Even just adding statistical accomplishments would beef up the article. Furthermore, there is no indication that a media search was attempted. He played for the Yankees at a time when NYC had a half dozen newspapers. Anyone who lives in New York State or the tri-state area around NYC should be able to find some interesting stories about him from the NY Times. There are too many seasons during which he was an active player that had no commentary in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personality

[edit]

Add later when I can decide where [1][2][3][4] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger Peckinpaugh/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

I think this article is quite informative. I have only a few comments. I've made some edits that your free to revert.[5]

  • The lede doesn't give him justice I don't think. For example apparently was a talented if inconsistent manager, the youngest hired by the Yankees at that time at age 23. (I'm not suggesting that you put this in the lede necessarily, as you know best, but after reading the lede I was surprised at all he achieved.)
  • " and signed him to his first professional contract. After choosing Ray Chapman over Peckinpaugh, the Naps traded him to the Yankees in 1913." - don't understand - was his first professional contract with the Naps, who decided they preferred Chapman for for shortstop so traded him without his actually playing for them?
    • First contract was with the Naps. They also had Chapman for the same position, and decided they preferred Chapman, though Peckinpaugh did play for them. I don't think Chapman's role is important enough for the lead, so I took it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Out of professional baseball, Peckinpaugh joined Lew Fonseca on nationwide baseball tours, which involved the viewing of a movie and technical demonstrations." So after the 1934 session, no one hired him?

Really a nice little article and great images. Everything else checks out. Will put on hold.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    pass!