Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jim Thome/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Jim Thome

Jim Thome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Jim Thome/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Jim Thome/archive2

Nominator(s): Go Phightins! 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article after having worked on it since October of last fall bringing it up to GA status and through a peer review incorporating suggestions from reviewer User:Daniel Case I now believe it meets or at least is very close to the Featured Article criteria. Granted, this is my first FAC, so I anticipate some feedback, but hopefully I can incorporate it and get it to be the first featured article to which I have significantly contributed. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful feedback. Regards, Go Phightins! 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have only looked at the lead but I have a few comments.

:"His additional accolades include..." Seems like fat. Why not just "He also received the the Roberto Clemente Award in 2002, the..."

I don't know what "Thome was part of a Cleveland Indians core which..." means. Maybe "...core group of players who..."

"His distinctions include" seems off. Even though it's longer, I think it would work better with "He is know for his characteristic..." and I think you need semi-colons for each characteristic in the list.

In "his batting stance, during which he..." I think "during" should be replaced with "in". All done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• In the Batting subsection, it says "Throughout his career, Thome has been considered one of the best hitters in the game." I modified a similar statement at the beginning of that section to specify that he is highly regarded as a power hitter. Feel free to modify my edit, but if you want to call him one of the best hitters (unqualified), make sure the source is saying that (a career .276 average is not particularly exceptional). Spangineer^ws (háblame) 17:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • An oversight on my part for the power hitter part. That's my fault. Thanks for the fix. Go Phightins! 19:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Go Phightins!. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Brief comments: I haven't read the full article yet, but a few issues early in the article, which is something of a concern. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• The lead is horribly short. All it covers is: his teams, his awards and some stats. There is more about his clothing than about his play. There should be much more about his career: where did he begin, how well did he do, what is his style (sporting rather than sartorial). It is certainly not a summary of the whole article.
• "Currently" is not good in the lead, as per WP:DATED.
• "pants" (and I question the value of this information in the lead at all) does not seem encyclopaedic. At least, not in the UK.
• Paragraphs begin with "he" in the lead and main body (not necessarily the first word, but the first mention of the subject in the paragraph). A paragraph should always begin "Thome" rather than "he".
• "into an athletic family": Ambiguous. Did they all do the sport of athletics? Were they all athletic in the sense of they were physically active? Or they were fast runners?
• Short choppy sentences in "Early life", and many of them begin "his" or "he". There seem to be short sentences throughout.
• Skipping ahead, there seem to be a large number of short paragraphs. Could some be combined?
  • Regarding this, how long do you think a paragraph should be, ideally. The GA reviewer wanted them to be shorter than they previously were, but now I agree that they are a little too short. In the MLB career section, there is roughly one paragraph per season. Should I make it two? Go Phightins! 22:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is an iron-clad rule. One season is probably not enough unless there is a lot to say. If seasons could be strung together by a theme (like injury, success, failure, etc) that is one way. Otherwise, maybe two or three. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• A brief glance also suggests that this article may fall into the tempting trap for sports articles of being heavily stats based. It is always better if the stats can be explained through commentary of coaches, journalists, critics. Rather than just list his figures, can they be given context. It is better to say that "X began the season well but faded later on. Y suggested that he improved Z aspect of his game" rather than just "X batted 2.85 in (year)". But I appreciate that this is not always possible, and have not looked closely enough to see how big an issue this is. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Just in scanning through this article, I can see some issues with recentism. The prime of Thome's career was mostly when he was with Cleveland, and there are 6–8 paragraphs on his time there. For the rest of his career, I count 17 paragraphs, many of which are longer than most of the Cleveland paras. I just don't think the balance is right for an article on this player; there should be more on Thome's Indians career. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Point taken. Thome was in the Indians organization for 11 years (91-02) and was on their big league club from 94-02. That is a total of 11 seasons. Since then, he has played 10 additional seasons. So I would surmise that a roughly equal number of paragraphs featuring the Indians and the rest of the teams would be ideal? Right now we are at 8 in the Indians section and at 13 in the other sections. In your mind, which team section should be the "model" for the others? The one on his first stint with the Phillies? I will say, however, that in the last two sections, they are a little more reliant on reflective quotes rather than information on his playing. Go Phightins! 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If by "model" you mean length of paragraphs, I think the Philadelphia ones are a little better in terms of size. There's also some non-statistical information mixed in there, which the Cleveland section really needs. He was one of the key players for a successful Indians team, and I can't believe that there isn't at least some non-statistical stuff on his career there. We say he's the most popular Cleveland athlete ever, after all. There has to be a good reason for that. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment to all reviewers concerned - Is the info. regarding Manuel and Thome that I added to the beginning of the Indians section the kind of thing we're looking for when it comes to non-statistical stuff? Go Phightins! 21:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that looks more like it, and certainly more readable. Sorry for not replying sooner to this. Feel free to ping me if you want me to look more closely at the article again. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Great. Thanks a lot. I will see what if anything else I can find, and then ping you again. Go Phightins! 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Revisiting now, and I've read to the end of Early life so far. This review may have to come in pieces, I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not a huge point, but do we really need the long list of teams in the lead? And in the first sentence at that? It is rather off-putting and is readily available in the infobox.
• "A five-time All-Star, Thome is a free agent.": Not sure these points link enough to be in the same sentence without elaboration.
• "He is seventh all-time for most career home runs": A little pedantic, but the seventh what? Perhaps "He has the seventh highest number of career home runs" or "He is seventh in the list of most career home runs".
• "Thome signed a free agent contract": Do we need this in the lead, or could it be simplified to "joined"? If not, a link is needed here, or an explanation of the distinction between this and an ordinary contract.
• "during which he hit his 400th home run" and later "joined the 500 home run club". Why note these milestones and not the 100th, 200th and 300th? We state in the first paragraph that he scored 600 HRs, so I don't think we need to mark his progress in the lead like this.
• "He was traded to the Baltimore Orioles in 2012 where he finished the season before filing for free agency": Again, for the purposes of the lead, I'd be inclined to cut "where he finished the season". And I would probably have a paragraph break after this sentence.
• There is some comma inconsistency: are we using it after "In [year]…" or not?
• "limited his ability to play the field": A little jargony/journalese.
• As mentioned before, I'm not sure about the socks thing, or the use of "pants".
• "before the pitcher comes set": jargon
• The last paragraph of the lead is all one sentence and would stand splitting.
• Rather than comment on "Early life", I copy-edited directly. Please check that I've not messed anything up and that you are happy with the changes. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I was at the Phillies game tonight and just got back after a heavy rainstorm ended the game early...a little tired now, so I think I will put these off until tomorrow afternoon where I should be available from about 18:00-21:00 UTC to do some editing (hopefully). We shall see. Thanks! Go Phightins! 03:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • All of these are finished. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More comments: Generally, this seems OK up to the end of the Cleveland section. However, I'm finding a few jargon issues and places where the encyclopaedic tone slips. Also, I still get little sense of how good he was. The stats are fine, and I think there is plenty of context, but apart from at the beginning, not a lot to tell me how good he actually was. Was he getting people excited? What was the reaction like to him? Was he a star, or just mediocre? There's just something missing. No major problems, but not quite there either. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• "After his weak season in rookie ball": A bit jargony and slightly POV?
• "particularly on opening up his hips": Specify why this is important? RIght now it is vague.
• "During this work, Manuel suggested to Thome that he point his bat out to center field before the pitch to relax himself like Roy Hobbs did in The Natural.": For those less well-versed in sports, it may be worth pointing out that this was when he was batting.
• "Their work paid off; in 1990, he combined...": As this is the start of a new paragraph, it is always better to start "Their work paid off; in 1990, Thorne combined" rather than begin a paragraph with "he".
• "where he combined to hit .319 with 7 home runs and 73 RBIs": He didn't really combine anything. What about "where, in combination, he hit..." Similar problem later in the paragraph with "combined".
• "In the game he went 2-for-4 and recorded his first hit": Can we link something, or provide a brief parenthetical explanation of "2-for-4"?
• "This performance earned him a late season call up...": Again, I think it may be better to spell out this was a call up for the Indians, rather than any other team.
• "Though the strike shortened the season, Thome still had success at the plate including his first career multi-home run game in which Thome hit two solo shots on June 22, 1994 against the Detroit Tigers off of John Doherty.": Long sentence which perhaps could be split. Also, "off of" sounds terribly informal. And "at the plate" makes this sounds a bit journalistic and not quite the right "voice" for an encyclopaedia.
• "His first full big-league season saw him hit 20 home runs": I'm afraid "saw" used like this is something of red rag to me! I really dislike its use in this way.
• "Originally a third baseman, the Indians moved him to first base when they acquired third baseman Matt Williams in 1997": Dangling participle here: the subject of the first part of the sentence does not match that of the second. And we are again beginning a paragraph with "he".
• "In 1997, Thome helped the Indians connect for a club record 220 home runs...": Not sure about "connect" here. What on earth does it mean?
• "Cleveland would, however, subsequently lose the series to the Yankees.": Why not just "Cleveland subsequently lost the series to the Yankees."?
• "writers expected Thome to bat in the cleanup spot": In the what??
• "Thome hit a grand slam against the Yankees off of Orlando Hernandez": "Off of" again.
• "The 2000 season would see Thome's statistics decline once again": "See" again, and there is really no need for the "would" construction in this sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I removed two instances of "off of", though I will say that is typical baseball jargon...granted it is not universal and should probably not be used in an encyclopedia. I linked cleanup hitter. All of the other "prosey" concerns addressed. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More comments: I've read to the end now, and cannot find any major issues. Although I am not going to oppose, I cannot support at this time. With the fixes, the prose is OK but to me, lacks a little something. There are too many similar, repetitive sentences which make the article slightly dull to read. But even if these are fixed, I think we are too stats-heavy here. The man just doesn't come alive. Even the Player Profile section, which is pretty good, seems to have a bit of trivia in it rather than really get to the heart of it. I don't get a sense, as I already mentioned, of how good he is, or where he would be placed in the all-time list. I'm not sure that I'm making myself clear here, and I think perhaps another copy-edit might help. And perhaps the non-stats detail does not exist. But there are no deal-breakers for me, so I'll remain on the fence. It may help to get Giants to take another look, as this is more his field than mine. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• "receiving a less than enthusiastic reception": Why not just "poor reception" or "hostile reception"? I don't think it needs dressing up.
• "Thome was one of three White Sox players who wore jersey number 42 in recognition of the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's Major League debut in the White Sox vs. Indians game in Cleveland on April 15, 2007.": Do we need this? It seems over detailed given the lack of similar detail earlier in the article, and it does not seem too important to him personally.
• "as well as the first ever to do it with a walk-off shot": With a what?
• "which happened to occur on Thome bobblehead giveaway day": Really not sure what this is all about.
• The White Sox section really suffers from choppy prose. Too many sentences beginning with "he" or "Thome" or a date ("on XXXX, Thome/he did YYYY...") This needs looking at as it does not really flow.
• Why do we go backwards at the start of the Minnesota section to talk about what happened before? It may be better to mention these events as they occurred. But I wonder if it is really that significant.
• "Down the stretch of the season...": Jargony.
• "during which he started a 3–6–3 double play": What is that? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • All of your concrete comments are taken care of. I get what you are saying, but to me it doesn't read that way (though that is probably because I am a baseball nerd and stat junkie). I have tried to add as much non-statistical information as I can find, but surprisingly there isn't a ton of it out there, at least that I have found in my significant research. Thank you for the thorough review. Go Phightins! 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to know that baseball is now my field. :-) I've done some basic Google searches and found a source that may be useful for fleshing out the all-around profile of Thome. That's this Sports Illustrated article from 1998, which includes some content about how he was used by the Indians and how he didn't gain much national recognition despite his statistics. It also mentions who influenced him during his Indians career, which is the kind of detail that I know Sarastro likes. On a brief look, I also saw some informal language like "He hit a solo shot in the AL Central Tiebreaker game", and a couple of shaky sources (JockBio and IMDB in refs 6 and 7). Maybe the SI source can help with the latter issue, since that goes into Thome's early life. I'd like to offer to go through this, but with the non-Wikipedia work that I have I'm afraid to make a commitment that I may not be able to keep. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Huh. I thought I had read all of the SI articles about him...I guess not. I will check it out. Thanks. Go Phightins! 10:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Incorporated a fair amount from that feature to the article. Go Phightins! 00:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • All right. I'll provide some more nit-picky comments now. Honestly, I'm surprised to see some of the following still in a potential FA this deep into a review.
            • Cleveland Indians: The Natural needs italics like it had in the lead.
• Done.
  • • • • • • "in which Thome hit two solo shots on June 22, 1994 against Detroit Tigers' pitcher John Doherty." Again, we have the informal "shots", which should be made more formal.
• Done.
  • • • • • • Sports Illustrated needs italics as well.
• Done.
  • • • • • • En dash needed in 8-4 towards the end of this subsection.
• Done.
  • • • • • • Chicago White Sox: Last sentence of the first paragraph here needs a reference.
• Two refs to substantiate each part of the sentence added.
  • • • • • • Los Angeles Dodgers: "On August 31, 2009, Thome the White Sox traded him to the Los Angeles Dodgers...". Should be "the White Sox traded Thome", I'd think.
• Fixed. Embarrassing that I wrote that. Thanks for the catch.
  • • • • • • Second stint at Philadelphia: End of the first paragraph needs a cite.
• Moved the citation that was from 2011 mentioned below; I reworked the paragraphs awhile ago and think it must've just gotten misplaced.
  • • • • • • "He started his first game at first base on April 8, 2012, during which he started a 3–6–3 double play." First, I don't see why starting a double play is notable; it happens in baseball all the time. Second, the source is from 2011, so I don't see how it can support something that happened in 2012.
• Notable because it happened in his first start in the field in five years...thought it would be more interesting stating something that doesn't happen every day that he did in his first game back rather than simply commenting that he made a start at first. And since most of the complaints thus far are that it is too stats heavy, I thought (and still think) it is worth including.
  • • • • • • Player profile: No need to capitalize "Steriod". I don't even know why this is in the article; if he's never been accused, why add anything on it?
• Included because he hit 500 home runs during the steroid era, so most players at least aroused suspicion, but Thome never did.
  • • • • • • All caps in ref 36 need removal.
• BASEBALL ROUNDUP is now Baseball Roundup; it appeared in all caps in the source itself, so I wasn't sure how to properly capitalize it.

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe all are resolved. Go Phightins! 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • One more thing I saw in the references while I'm here: I doubt that BabeRuthCentral.com (ref 35) is a reliable enough source for FA. Also, I'm not sure Premiere Athlete & Celebrity (ref 112) is that great a source for the Playing characteristics section. There should be something out there stronger than that site to back up the sentence it supports. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree that Babe Ruth Central is not a great source, but honestly it was the most reliable thing I could find...so I removed the whole tidbit on the award. The info. supported by ref 112 was also in the 1998 SI Article, so I removed and cited instead. Go Phightins! 01:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- as it's been open six weeks with no consensus for promotion developing, I'm going to archive this nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.