Talk:Ross Youngs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an all-American boy, so I guess I can take on a baseball article. I'll be reviewing this article later tonight but, in the meantime, there's one dead link according to the report ("Hall voter finds new parameters unhittable"). Also, I noticed that the picture in the infobox is lacking a caption, which should be rectified per the Good Article criteria. Canadian Paul 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No rush on the review, I just nominated this yesterday and have a few other open reviews. I'll get on those two things now though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caption added, and I found a working url for that link. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 29 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:

Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should not introduce information that is not already present in the body of the article, so his nickname "Pep" should be mentioned in the body of the article.
Also per WP:LEAD, the introduction should summarize the major parts of the article and a good rule of thumb is that it should touch upon every major section of the body. I feel that it's a bit lacking in its current state (I would expect, for example, for it to at least mention that his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame was controversial) and should touch maybe even just a sentence or two more on his personal life.
Under "New York Giants", second paragraph, "Batting exclusively as a left-handed batter," is there any way to clear up that redundancy? I would do it myself in cases like this usually, but I want to make sure I'm not stepping on the toes of any technical terms.
Same section, third paragraph, "McGraw began to groom Youngs to become his successor as Giants' manager." This sentence sticks out somewhat because it doesn't fit in temporally with the rest of the paragraph. Maybe something like "Batting .327 in 1921, good for ninth in the NL, it was around this time that McGraw began to groom Youngs to become his successor as Giants' manager." As it stands, this fact disrupts the flow because it doesn't connect with either the previous or the following sentence at all and is basically the only piece of information that doesn't discuss his stats in these two paragraphs. It just needs to fit in a little better to maintain flow.
In that whole paragraph, actually, the prose begins to devolve a bit from a narrative flow into a list of facts, but I think this could be easily remedied. For example, it is currently written "On April 29, 1922, Youngs hit for the cycle. Youngs batted .375 in the 1922 World Series, as the Giants again defeated the Yankees." Slightly better might be "In 1922 Youngs hit for the cycle, on April 29, and several months later helped the Giants beat the Yankees once again at the 1922 World Series, in which he batted .375". Just anything that would help bolster the flow and make it look a little less like "fact after fact".
Under "Illness and Death", second paragraph, "He went from weighing 170 pounds" Since players' weights can vary throughout their career, it should probably specify when he weighed that much, even if it's per WP:OBVIOUS.
Same paragraph, "the greatest outfielder I ever saw." Since this is a direct quote, it requires a direct citation at the end of the sentence, even if it's the same source used later on.
Under "Legacy", first paragraph, "Youngs posted impressive numbers over his abbreviated ten-year career," seems POV to me. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV this POV should either be cited or, better yet, removed so that readers can decide for themselves based on the facts whether or not his numbers were "impressive". Objective comparison to other players might help, but isn't necessary at all. It's also an issue in the lead, which has "Known for his superb defense and consistent hitting,"
Same paragraph, "Rosy Ryan and Burleigh Grimes considered Youngs the best player they ever saw." Why should I care about the opinions of two random baseball players? Why their opinion is important and should be given weight here should be qualified.
Same section, third paragraph, it is mentioned three times that Youngs was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1972. That can almost certainly be cut down a little.

Also, not that this is really a GA issue, but I notice his name in the article title "Ross" never actually appears in the article. Of course there's WP:NAMES, but shouldn't the first sentence start with "Royce Middlebrook "Ross" Young"? Anyways, the article did need a bit of a copyedit so I went ahead and did that - hopefully nothing to controversial - so that should be all good for now. Probably the most significant thing I did was reorganize the information in the "Legacy" section to make it (in my opinion) flow better. If you disagree, of course, we can discuss. I'll put the article on hold for now and, once these issues have been resolved, I'll take another look over it and see what else needs to be done. 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. Canadian Paul 21:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor handled some of these issues. I'm going to start addressing the rest today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. As always, just let me know when you want me to take another look. Canadian Paul 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 - nickname now sourced in the body
2 - Lead has been expanded
3 - Changed to "Batting exclusively left-handed"
4 - It was sort of shoehorned in there. I moved it up to the end of the first paragraph in the section. I feel it flows better there, and it's not a particular point in time statement that needs to be in one specific place.
5 - flow improved some, is that enough?
6 - Stated explicitly that it's during his career
7 - citation added
8 - I agree that the word "impressive" was POV, and it's been removed. I think the "superb" and "consistent" in the lead are sufficiently backed up by the body of the article, though.
9 - Ryan and Grimes may be "random players" in the scheme of Youngs' life and career, but what they said about Youngs was high praise. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase and/or integrate it, but I think it needs to stay.
10 - Only mentioned once now.

Regarding #9, I don't mind at all if it stays, but it should be emphasized why their opinion is worth including. Right now, without clicking on the two links, you wouldn't even know that they were teammates of Youngs, for example. Canadian Paul 19:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it needed that context. Ryan was a teammate, but Grimes didn't join the Giants until after Youngs' last season. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Let me know if it's ready to go and I can give it another look tomorrow. Canadian Paul 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready to go. Give it a look when you get a chance and let me know if there's anything else it needs. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look right now! Canadian Paul 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments:

I still find "superb" and "consistent" to be too POV for the article - it's quite possible for two reasonable people to look at his statistics and come to a conclusion other than those two words. For example, if he was universally thought to be "superb", then there wouldn't be so much controversy surrounding his induction. "Consistent" I can probably let slide, but if I were to start reading this article from the lead, and then read "superb", I would detect and immediate bias and it would seem like that article is telling me what I should think of him rather than letting the facts speak for themselves per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
Under "Legacy", third paragraph, "Shiner, the town in which Youngs was born, hosted a baseball tournament in his honor." According to the link, the tournament referenced in the source is the "second annual", so this sentence needs to be clarified. For example, it can be read as "once hosted, from period X to X" or "hosted only once", or it would be "hosts" if the annual trend continued (couldn't find any evidence, but I only did a quick Google search).

Other than that, everything looks good and the article should be read to go once these issues have been addressed! Canadian Paul 20:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the offending words. No need to keep them if they even hint at POV. As for the tournament, the 2002 article states it's the second occurrence, and I found another source saying it was scheduled to happen again in 2003. I see nothing about it after that, so I'm going with 2001 through 2003 as a timeframe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Looks to be good to go now, so I will be passing the article for Good Article status. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Canadian Paul 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your review! – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]