Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Chesbro/archive1

Jack Chesbro

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi. I'm hoping to get a quick peer review from an editor familiar with the FA process. I'm curious to see if this article has the potential for FA status. Is there anything that seems problematic for an FA review? Anything that an FA reviewer would request that isn't currently here? How is the prose? Should I nominate this, after incorporating your suggestions, or should I be satisfied with promoting it for DYK and GA and leave it at that? Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Realistically, you may have to wait a while for a peer review. At present there are 28 articles in the backlog, some of which have been there several weeks. PR is suffering from a chronic reviewer shortage at the moment, and it is a case of being patient. It might be worth your while seeking out another editor who is active and knowledgeable in the baseball area and asking if they would be prepared to review your article. Otherwise, I'm afraid it may be a longish wait. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I will seek out WP:BASEBALL opinions on the matter, but I would like non-baseball readers to review this as well, since one of my sins is not explaining baseball terms clearly enough to the non-baseball audience. I'm in no rush to nominate this anyway, got another I'm getting close to nominating first, so I don't mind the delay. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

I think this article is currently some way from FA quality. The main issue is with prose and accessibility. There are several parts which are not easy to understand to someone like me who is not an expert on baseball. Also, the sentences are a little choppy and make the article hard to read. In addition, there seems little flow to the article and ideas and facts do not seem particularly connected or integrated into the whole. I read around half of the article without really getting an impression who this guy was or why I should be interested in him. This, and the lumpy prose, rather put me off reading the whole thing. I would suggest a few rounds of copy-editing, initially by someone familiar with baseball and maybe with FAC experience, before asking another copy-editor to have a look and then putting up for PR again. Overall, I think the subject and information make it worth trying for FA, but it needs a lot of work to reach that standard. I've left some more detailed comments on the early part of the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead does not adequately summarise the article (see WP:LEAD): there is no mention of his early life and barely any mention of his career.
"His 41 wins during the 1904 season remains an MLB record for the modern era, and is viewed as unbreakable": Viewed by whom?
Although I have a reasonable working knowledge of baseball, the second paragraph of the lead is impenetrable to me. Who usually did the electing? Why was it a mistake? If this is notable enough for the lead, it should be explained why this seems to be so controversial.

Early life

The paragraph should not begin "He", but "Chesbro".
I appreciate that his name changed, but the article should be consistent throughout; Cheesborough in this section jars a little. It may also be worth explaining here that his name changed, as well as stating it later.
It reads as if he worked at the hospital merely to play for the baseball team, which seems difficult to believe.

Professional Career

This section suffers from choppy, repetitive sentences with a fairly formulaic structure. ("In XXXX, he pitched for XXXX of the XXXX, until XXXX")
There is also an overuse of "pitched". I'm particularly not sure about "He pitched the remainder of the 1896 season" (maybe "For the remainder of the season, he pitched")
"Chesbro began his professional career in minor league baseball in 1895. That year, he pitched for the Albany Senators of the New York State League until they folded, at which point he joined the Johnstown Buckskins.": Redundancy here: Why not "In 1895, Chesbro began his professional career pitching for the minor league Albany Senators of the New York State League. The team folded [in the same year? Later?], and he joined the Johnstown Buckskins."
"However, Hanlon took a job with the Brooklyn Superbas and the Orioles were nearly contracted, resulting in Chesbro not signing with Baltimore, as Hanlon allowed the option to lapse.": I find this impossible to understand.
"After the season, on December 8, 1899, Chesbro was traded…" This long list of names is a very bad idea and particularly unreadable.
"The Louisville club dissolved that offseason…" Which offseason? When, more precisely? Why? Why was Chesbro assigned to that particular team afterwards?
"After going 15–13 for the 1900 Pirates": Jargon.
"the upstart American League": Upstart?
"to join the AL..": Doubled periods. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. This will be helpful in improving the article, whether or not I nominate it for FA. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]