Jump to content

Talk:Yadier Molina/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman, you've just nominated my all-time favorite. I'll be glad to review this, and will have comments posted in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have looked more closely before I leapt--I read the FAC and understand the situation now. Elcid.ruderico, do you mind getting another review from me so soon after Michael Wacha? Thanks again for all your Cardinals contributions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a preliminary note, Bengie's now with the Rangers, so that caption needs to be changed. (It would have needed rephrasing per WP:REALTIME anyway for exactly this kind of situation--too hard to keep up with all the "now" statements.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on this and help out if needed, but as noted it's Elcid's article rather than mine, so I'll let him take the reins on any issues. Wizardman 23:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a bit more of a look. Thanks again for the work you've put in on this; I think it's off to a solid start, though there's some work to be done to meet the GA criteria.

As a starting point, I agree with all the comments made at the FAC, and would suggest that those be acted on first:

  • Eliminate the quotations from the ends of citations for copyright reasons and because they appear unnecessary.
  • Rewrite throughout to reduce "sportswriting voice" and seek a flatter, neutral tone. Wizardman's examples are good. Another would be the first sentence, "known affectionately by fans as "Yadi""--this could be written simply as "known also as Yadi" or "nicknamed Yadi" or some thing that doesn't shift into POV. A statement like that in the caption, "Molina's defensive skill set makes him one of the top players in the game", should be attributed to a specific writer/source and also dated; there's no telling in baseball if even next year Yadi will still be one of the game's dominant players. i.e., "Molina has won N gold gloves and in Year X, finished Nth in the voting for NL MVP." I don't mind the lesser sportswriterish cliches like "stroked a single to xxxx" but this article shouldn't read as if it was written by a Cardinals fan.
  • Advanced stats should probably be defined in explanatory footnotes for clarity (I know these are also wikilinked, but it's nice to have all necessary info for the reader on one page).
  • I agree that the "health issues" section seems odd, since the message is essentially that there aren't any. Can this information be integrated elsewhere to avoid the very short section?

Other comments so far:

  • Overall, the weight that the article gives to some different events seems odd to me. Yadi's 2006 gamewinning Game 7 NLCS homer gets only a sentence, while there's two sentences about him once tagging Ty Wigginton out at the plate in a 2004 regular season game, or three sentences about him winning a game with a weak RBI single.
  • "Molina received his first of five Gold Glove Awards." -- this is already out of date; again, I'd suggest rewriting sentences to read with phrasing like "As of 2013, Molina had won six Gold Glove awards" so this isn't being tagged and sent to reassessment a year from now. Anything discussing a "current" stat, role, etc., should be rephrased. WP:REALTIME is a good guideline for this. Or think of us as the anti-Mark McGwires--we're only here to talk about the past.
  • Another small note--it's odd that a 2007 photo of Yadi and Bengie is next to the 2011 section; the year should probably be specified for context, and perhaps the photo moved.

This should give you a good starting point. Let me know your thoughts on the above, and then I'll start a closer read of the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will edit. I shall delightfully handle this and ensure that Señor Molina attains more of his deserved hardware, and one day, his entrance into the Ultimate Calvary, while maintaining an encyclopedic tone. I will modify the content to reflect more as such. I intended to address the concerns brought up in the earlier post-FAC reviews – perhaps even nominated myself for GA – but got off on a tangent editing and gloriously expanding other Cardinals-related content. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First review

[edit]

Great, thanks for addressing these concerns so quickly. I hope to have a fuller review of the article posted by the end of the day. I'm also making some changes as I go; feel free to revert any with which you disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In his ten-year career, the Cardinals have appeared in seven playoff tournaments." --how about, "in the first ten years of his career, the Cardinals appeared..." to avoid this going out of date? This way if neither of us remember to update the sentence next year, it's not wrong.
Addressed. My mistake, it appears I glossed over that part. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Again, it appears I glossed over it. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having the second infobox seems awkward. Could this limited info (that they won a silver medal) simply be added into the main infobox? If not, could it be moved down to the World Baseball Classic section?
  • Nice job telling the story of Molina's childhood baseball experiences. This was interesting to learn more detail about.

More soon, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Edwin Rodríguez was one of the first professional baseball scouts to recognize Molina" -- the source doesn't seem to support this--just that Rodriguez had observed Molina since high school. Since his older brothers were so successful, though, it stands to reason that he would have been on the radar of many other scouts as well, and Rodriguez may not have been the first.
  • " both accomplished defenders as catchers –" -- I'm also not sure the source supports this assessment.
  • I've boldly cut a few sentences from the description of the pre-draft Reds workout that seem to me excessive detail. The Ricketts story is also very long compared to its likely importance in Molina's life, but it has the virtue of being funny.

Break now, but more soon, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 2005, Molina's defense did not disappoint, and, despite an awful offensive start, Molina improved his hitting" -- this needs a source. It looks like his BA actually went down from '04 if I'm reading this right, and there's nothing on his defense besides the caught-stealings.
  • "Those were just two wins of 100 as St. Louis made their way to another division title following 105 wins the season before" -- both these figures need inline citation
  • "Much of their success is credited, in turn, with Molina's leadership behind the plate as well as preparation" -- this needs citation, and should probably be attributed to someone specific saying it.
  • "On the other hand, his defense remained constant as ever... Molina whipped the ball with perfect speed and precision... " -- these are the kind of phrases that need to be rewritten or cut, IMO
  • "In a game against the Milwaukee Brewers on April 15, 2007, Prince Fielder was on first in the fifth inning with the Cardinals leading by two runs. First baseman Albert Pujols snuck behind Fielder to the first base bag. After pitcher Braden Looper delivered, Molina fired the ball to Pujols, who tagged Fielder out to end the inning. Fielder had leaned too far of the bag, tipping off Molina and first baseman Albert Pujols to a hit and run the Brewers were planning. The Cardinals won the contest, 10–2" -- what makes this pickoff so crucial as to get this much detail?

More comments. I might leave it here for the day; I've given you plenty to chew on. Though I've made extensive comments above, it does look to me like this article is fundamentally sound and shouldn't have much trouble advancing to GA. Thanks again for all your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for the quick responses. I did mark two as not done that don't appear on my end to have been changed. Maybe we're looking at different parts of the article? (And sorry for the ugly red Xs, I just needed a symbol I wouldn't miss when glancing back over it.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

[edit]

Okay, it looks like all the above is resolved, save for two points at the end that I moved down here so we wouldn't lose track of them. Thanks again for your quick responses and your work on this! I realize I've listed quite a few small cleanup points so far, but the fundamentals of your work on the article are strong, and this seems likely to be promoted to GA shortly.

Carryover points from above
  • "After a home plate collision with Eric Bruntlett on June 15 against the Philadelphia Phillies, Molina sustained head and neck injuries and was removed from the field to the hospital via a stretcher." -- it seems incomplete not to say how long this injury kept him out for--a day, a week, a month? (I remember the collision, but not the detail.)
  • " He was fellow defensive standout Iván Rodríguez' " -- needs a citation re: Pudge's defense
Points from the final sections
  • "Yadier Molina's all-round defensive skills are among the most-admired in the game, from peers to coaches, scouts, managers, officials and fans alike. " -- we both know that this is true, but it's a hard thing to source and put into neutral language. I've tried rewriting this a bit to make it more concrete. Let me know what you think.
  • " tallied him at 98" -- I assume this is also his runs saved, and not his overall ranking, right? This could be clarified.
  • "Molina's defensive skill set makes him one of the top players in the game" -- I think this caption's a bit too opinionated to stand alone. It also doesn't make a lot of sense to me to join this caption and this image, because he's not really doing anything defensive in this image--he's perhaps backing up a play by Carp? I'd actually suggest cutting this image from the article entirely, as it's not a very good image of Molina and doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject. What do you think?
  • " In the April 15, 2007 game in which he captured Fielder, Molina reportedly recognized cues indicating he may be straying far enough off the bag to make himself an accessible target for ensnarement." -- "captured" is an odd word here, and in any case, I'm surprised that we're giving yet more sentences to this individual Fielder pickoff--was this really that iconic a moment? I personally don't remember it, but that may not mean anything. Still, this was just a regular-season game, and wasn't a close one (5-2).
    • I'm cutting this out solely because its purpose will likely be poorly understood it if it already seems difficult to you. The point was, to show an example of how Molina studies opposing hitters and baserunners and is able to understand his best chances for a pickoff and/or where to move fielders. This is indirectly validated because he leads catchers in pickoffs since his MLB debut. However, if the information is too ephemeral to be considered encyclopedic, then yes, it would be best removed. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the "defense" section seems poorly organized. I don't understand why a quotation from Wainwright about dirt-pitch-blocking is in the middle of the first paragraph, but then there's more about it another paragraph or two down, for example. LaRussa's quotation about pitch calling seems like it would be better joined with the other discussion of pitch-calling.
  • "Pick off" (pickoff, pick-off, pick off) is spelled in variable ways throughout the article. Either of the first two are valid, I think, but this should be made consistent.
  • http://www.biographies.net/ seems unlikely to meet Wikipedia standards for a reliable source. In fact, their first sentence appears to come from our article.
  • " Steiner Sports Marketing filed a lawsuit for $175,000 against Molina in the New York state supreme court in Manhattan on October 2, 2009" -- is there no followup on the results of this lawsuit?
    • When I first included this paragraph, I really dug to find out what the outcome was. I literally found nothing. However, to keep the article as fairly weighted as possible, it seemed important to include. Should this still be kept? --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cut some important but unsourced material from the lead--the bit about pre-game preparations for batting does not appear anywhere in the article that I can see, nor that Molina is considered one of the best hitters in the sport. And just as another reminder, you can't write something like "Molina is one of the best hitters in the sport" in present tense, because that may no longer be true in the next year or two. I realize that rule is a pain in the butt, but I'm sure you've seen all the badly out of date statements in other baseball Wiki articles; that's why we have WP:REALTIME.

Since we've made such substantial changes to this article between the two of us, I'll give this another top-to-bottom read at some point before passing, but let's take care of the above first. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did not cover quite all your points at this time. I'm gonna leave it for now and probably be back at it tomorrow. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears now I have answered all your requests so far. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Will take another run through, presumably the last, on Monday or Tuesday. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is good; spotchecks and Copyvio Detector show no violations
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yadier_Molina/GA1&oldid=967093426"