Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lou Gehrig/1

Lou Gehrig

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: No consensus to list. Suggest renomination. Geometry guy 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request community review of this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my comment at GAN/talk. As the article seems to be fully sourced and otherwise comply with MOS and use of images, etc., the wider community's assessment would be helpful especially as the prose question raised by the reviewer was unresolved. Using WP:FACR as a measuring stick, I believe the article's prose is "engaging and professional", as well as presenting the content comprehensively, factually accurate, and reliably sourced. JGHowes ^talk - 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this article is ready, and I agree with the decision not to list it. I do not share the nominator's view that the prose is "engaging and professional", but more importantly, I do not agree that it adequately meets the far less stringent GA criteria.

"... including a 450-foot (137 m) blast on April 28". Blast doesn't seem like appropriately formal language.

The first three sentences of the fourth paragraph of Major League Baseball career all start off with "Gehrig ...".

Too much peacockery, like "... Al Simmons made an amazing leaping catch ...". Amazing to who? Me?

"On June 1 1925, Gehrig was sent in to pinch hit for light-hitting shortstop Paul "Pee Wee" Wanninger." Too many statements like that one, which mean almost nothing to someone like myself who isn't familiar with the sport's jargon.

"Gehrig accumulated 1,995 RBIs in seventeen seasons ...". RBI needs to be explained in this article, instead of forcing the reader to follow a link.

... chiefly remembered for his prowess as a slugger ...". Is slugger an official baseball term?

"Earl Whitehall beaned Gehrig, knocking him nearly unconscious". Beaned might be OK for a sports page, but not for an encyclopedia.

The list following: "Late in life, X-rays disclosed that Gehrig had sustained several fractures during his playing career" does not appear to have anything to do with any fractures.

Shouldn't use pullout quotes ( {{cquote}} ) in the body of the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks very much for looking this over. I've gone through the article and corrected the points you raised. JGHowes ^talk - 04:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to speak to the confusion regarding the second opinion request, the reviewer requested a second opinion because there were a lot of statistics given in the article and a lot of focus was given to the sentimental aspects of Gehrig's diesase and death. I looked through the article and replied in the review section that there didn't seem to be too many statistics (certainly not more than some of the other baseball articles I have read) and that the article captures how Gehrig is remembered. I said that I didn't believe that either of the concerns were serious enough to prevent the article from reaching GA level. The reviewer was satisfied with that answer, and the request for a second opinion was removed, as one had been provided. I am not sure where the confusion came in. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the decision not to list the article in its present form. Malleus has summarised the major issues very well; the presence of so much jargon, idiom and so many statistics render it meaningless to some one unfamiliar with the sport, and the article comes across as a tribute to, rather than an encyclopedic treatment of, its subject. In addition to the above, the tables towards the end are confusing, the stamp image has no caption and is seemingly irrelevant (the related text is nearby), and the notes section would be better divided into Notes and References, with perhaps a parenthetical referencing system for the books cited. EyeSerene^talk 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renominate. I agree with some of the above issues, but I think it is a pretty good article, and comes close to meeting the criteria now. I recommend renomination and will close this reassessment, which has been unattended for far too long. Geometry guy 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]