This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
A fact from Mike Cervenak appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 0 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I think that this article is way to choppy, and thus I tagged it. There are 6 sub-sections in the playing career category, but each one only has about 5 lines. They should either be expanded or condensed. If they all can be expanded and referenced then terrific, but otherwise, I think the section should be condensed. Upon further review, it's well enough referenced, but I still think condensation of the article is warranted Go Phightins! (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Condensation is no problem. I did take exception at the implication of poor referencing because I worked hard to get this article up to DYK snuff. I don't think that any of the content needs to be removed, it can just be sliced down under larger headings. I'll try and tackle it. — KV5 • Talk • 00:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I didn't mean to be brusque. I didn't know why I tagged the poor ref. one after I re-read the article...sorry about that. But nice job working on this article. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
