Talk:Aubrey Huff

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=MLB Advanced Media for references to Baseball-Reference.com, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aubrey Huff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll first do a close readthrough, noting any initial issues as I go, and then will begin the criteria checklist. Looking forward to working with you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

Overall, this seems like strong work, and I don't anticipate many problems with this getting to GA. Thanks for all your work on this one!

My biggest criticism would be that at times this article reads extremely "dry"; there's lots of hitting numbers, but at points little sense of the events. This isn't one of the GA criteria, so I don't think it's a big deal here, but for general article improvement purposes, it could use more anecdotes or quotes from Huff like the terrific "[My wife] wanted me to hit her a homer. I hit three. Brownie points.". Similarly, it would be useful to have more analysis of Huff's game beyond raw hitting data. How did sportswriters and scouts evaluate him at different points in his career? Did he exceed or fail to live up to his prospect rankings and his contracts? At what points did he struggle? How're his defense and speed? Etc. Compare to a sentence from a source like "On Opening Day, he was showered with boos by the Orioles faithful, but on Sunday afternoon, Aubrey Huff walked out to the mound to a warm reception from that same crowd as he accepted the award for Most Valuable Oriole," which give much more a sense of narrative. Again, this article gives enough of an overview to pass GA, but I wanted to mention this issue for further revision/expansion.

• "He batted .297 with 24 home runs and 104 RBI" --this needs a year (2004?).
• "He bats left-handed but throws right-handed." --this isn't a necessary action point, but I wonder if you might move this up to the initial paragraph; it feels like an odd coda to the year-by-year career paragraph
• " the fourth highest single-season average in school history" -- you should probably add a footnote to the effect of "All UM rankings are as of [date]". It seems unlikely that anyone's going to think to update this article if next year Huff slides down a notch on one of these lists, and the language is all in present tense.
• "now the third-longest" -- use a date and "as of" instead of "now", to avoid going out of date.
• "have been matched by eleven players in major league history" -- use "as of"; this statement also appears to be unsourced.
• One of your sources mentions "some controversial comments he made about the city of Baltimore in the offseason" that made Huff hated by fans; this might be worth including.[1]
• was named "Most Valuable Oriole." Who gives this award? MLB, BBWAA?
• "Huff ranks among the top ten in several career and single-season records" -- another point where you should add a qualifier "as of" or "through 2012", etc.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes addressed. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting these so fast. Starting checklist now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear, spot checks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	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.	Article is excellently sourced
	2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
	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).	Article is a bit heavy on hitting stats while light on other information, but passes this criterion on the balance.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without 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 images:
	6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass-- nice work.