Talk:Ryan Braun/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Okay, I went through this article, seeing as it was A-class, and this article actually needs a good deal of help.

All references needs to be properly handled (use the citation templates, add the title and publisher).

I put the few remaining footnotes into references. Note -- there is more than one acceptable means of referece. Templates need not be used, and in fact are not in most of the article. I would suggest that the entire article be put into the acceptable form that as suggested adds the title and the publication, but would suggest that we use the prevalent non-template format rather than change 100 footnotes needlessly. There is still work to be done to reflect this, however, as a number of references do not currently reflect the publication or writer.

We have a 71kb article for a guy who played two seasons. Some cuts and rewording will need to be made.

Made some cuts, and will give it another go-through. But the measure should of course be his number of accomplishments (that is what leads to article material), not his number of years playing. Another player with a 15-year career but fewer accomplishments should have a shorter article.

The random bolding throughout the seasons is an eyesore, agh.

I respectfully disagree. As with headings, it helps the reader find and digest material.

The 2008 season especially, is just a slew of one-sentence paragraphs with no real stucture.

Worked on that and will give it another look.

The season awards need to be blended in with the season itself, no need for little subsections for each season.

Again, I respectfully disagree. They follow the season, and again for the reader who wants to find them or digest them this format works well.

I can barely due a truly in-depth review because of the format of this article. I'll give you 2 weeks or so to at least show progress to fixing this article. Hopefully it'll be deserving of its GA spot in time for the 2009 season. Wizardman 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points above. Comments inserted there, indented, directly following each of Wizardman's 5 points.--Ethelh (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to help out here on the footnotes, per the above combined comments. Probably moved them 90% of the way, but they could still use a little work. I think the sections/headings are fine, given the article length.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes seem good so far. By the bolding issue, I mean that bolding every single season award that the guy ever won is just distracting and a pain, it makes it so that i can't tell what are section and what it just bolding. Wizardman 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wizardman, they're too much emphasis that are distracting from section headings. Let the paragraphs speak for themself. Found at WP:WISCONSIN. Royal broil 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll shrug it off for now since the 2009 season's beginning, but in the off-season I'll likely look at this article again in hopes that it will improve. Wizardman 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Saw this was up for GA review, and took a look. I don't care for the heavy header structure. Here's what it looks like:

3 Major leagues

   * 3.1 Milwaukee Brewers (2007–present)
         o 3.1.1 General
         o 3.1.2 2007
               + 3.1.2.1 Spring training
               + 3.1.2.2 Regular season
               + 3.1.2.3 Season awards
         o 3.1.3 2008
               + 3.1.3.1 Spring training
               + 3.1.3.2 Regular season
               + 3.1.3.3 Season awards
         o 3.1.4 2009
               + 3.1.4.1 World Baseball Classic
               + 3.1.4.2 Regular season

Holy cow, that's a fourth level header. Notice that a fourth level header is actually smaller than the text of that section. I don't recommend using them. Second, Notice your second level, "Milwaukee Brewers" only has one entry. Since all his major league career, at this point, is with the Brewers, leave it out. Even if there were other teams, you add them behind the years, like "2007 - Milwaukee Brewers". So that makes it only three levels of headers.

In the Regular Season sections, there are a lot of paragraphs headed by bold phrases. I suggest either removing them (and letting the paragraph explain what its subject is) or setting them above the paragraph.

For the Season Awards, each has its own paragraph, with the award bolded, at the beginning. I don't think this looks very good. Bolding is generally used as section headers, so it looks confusing. Personally, I think it would look better as a simple paragraph, but if you want a list, that's probably okay too. I do, however, suggest that you don't bold, but try italicizing. And possibly a bulleted list, too. -Freekee (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Per my comments in the Youkilis GA review, I will keep this at GA/Mid, since we don't really use the A-class unless it's coming from another project. (i.e. milhist, films) Wizardman 14:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]