Wikipedia:Peer review/Ted Radcliffe/archive1

Ted Radcliffe

This was the first full article that I wrote for Wikipedia. It now feels comprehensive but pedestrian and it needs subdivision. I would like help dividing it into sections and polishing the prose. —Theo (Talk) 12:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just glanced at the article, but one thing that jumps out at me is the number of red links. You need to get rid of those either by creating stubs or simply removing the wiki links. —Wayward 02:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good point! I am now on the case. —Theo (Talk) 10:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have spent the entire day writing about Negro League baseball but I still have seventeen remaining redlinks. Another day, perhaps. —02:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Now there are just three. I think that is acceptable so I will leave it there.—Theo (Talk) 15:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's 103 years old! That is amazing!! I am so impressed by the "Reference" section - that is very comprehensive. Assuming that you are wanting to raise this to Featured Article status, that's a fairly stringent process, so this is what I suggest. Relate your references into the body of the text. Wikipedia:Cite sources gives a lot of information about how to do it, and what's required. There are a couple of suggestions for footnote styles, all of which are acceptable, but the one I like is Wikipedia:Footnote4. It produces easily readable footnotes that also have the advantage of leaving the body of the article fairly uncluttered. Removing the redlinks is a great idea - I would suggest creating stub articles for those that you feel genuinely warrant an article. You can expand on them at a later date. If you feel that they don't really need an article, just remove the link.

The article needs a strong lead section that summarises the article, followed by relevant sections. Have a look at some of the other sports bio articles that are currently featured. Suzanne Lenglen, Jim Thorpe and Sandy Koufax are all well structured and may give you some ideas. I think there are too many very short paragraphs that all start with "In 1924", "In 1933" etc. It makes the text a bit static. I find that writing what happened first - because it is the main thing you want to discuss - followed by the date, works pretty well, but for variety a few sentences could start with "In such and such date". Rather than just have a series of short points, you could expand on them somewhat, to give it more of a flow. I think that will also help you decide where the divisions belong. Rossrs 11:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your your comprehensive advice. I have increased the number of inline references (I am using Template:Inote, which is my personal favourite. I am comfortable about the strength of the three-paragraph lead. I took your advice about structure; I hope that I met the spec. Any further comments that you have would be most welcome. —Theo (Talk) 02:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. Everything you've done has added so much to the quality of the article. Rossrs 11:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. The Lead reads very well! But a problem that jumps out is that he was born and then he started his career. A sampling of the references, and the titles of them all, indeed suggest that they're mainly about his career + retirement, but have you really not got anything from 1902—1928? I do realise poor children's lives in Mobile, Alabama in the early 20th century weren't well-documented, but still. If his parents, background and life up to age 26 are a total mystery, then that might be a remarkable fact that's worth a paragraph of its own. Also, if that's the case, how sure can you be of his year of birth? Bishonen | talk 09:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of his known life appearing to start in 1928 was a consequence of my beginning the career section with a summary. I have now moved this into the "Pro ball" subsection. I think that this works better. —Theo (Talk) 13:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]