Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 21:59, 31 October 2009 [1].

Derek Jeter edit

Nominator(s): Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is a big time of year for the visibility of Derek Jeter. This article is in solid shape, has been very stable for months, and even though was only promoted to GA recently, it languished with no one nominating it for promotion. Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself looks well done, but the citations mix ISO-style (YYYY-MM-DD), Day Month Year, and Month Day, Year dates, and even a bunch of other formats like "[2009-3-3]" and "(09/14/2008 6:37 PM ET)"! Use one for all of them. I can't tell which one's the main format, so I suggest either ISO-style or MDY because the article is more US-centric. --an odd name 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both over and underlinking need review. See WP:OVERLINKing and WP:MOSLINK. Baseball jargon should all be linked or defined on first occurrence, common words known to most English speakers need not be linked, and the byear links that don't provide information directly relevant to Jeter should be reviewed. The external jump in the text should be removed (converted to a citation). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the nominator still following? Muboshgu (talk · contribs), I see you've been editing, but haven't edited this article for four days. I left sample edits of issues that should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm still following. I was waiting for all comments to accrue while I did a few different things. Thanks for your help so far and the good comments. I'll get to work on this article tomorrow. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I believe? I may have missed a dash or two, but I think I've addressed your concerns. It's down to the missing citations now. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks) but it needs some work. Please remove all proper names (including "Derek Jeter" and "Tampa Bay Devil Rays") as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. On the same grounds, please remove the text "common", "at Oriole Park in 2007", "at shortstop" (can't tell from the image that he's at shortstop), "playing toss with his teammate before a game against the Colorado Rockies on June 19, 2007", "saluting the crowd", "while the crowd cheers after he recorded his 2,722th hit, passing Lou Gehrig to become the all-time Yankees hits leader". Some of this stuff can be moved to the caption; some should be removed because it duplicates the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition). Eubulides (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright review: Everything looks OK. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There are several cite tags in the article, and some other uncited bits. For this to be a featured article, they will have to be addressed. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, those have been added since the FLC began (I certainly wouldn't nominate an article with citation tags), and I will look to fulfill those as I finish up. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll review the sources when the article doesn't have any citation needed tags. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing done, no citation tags remain. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coments *I see a lot of refs with the title or part of the title in all caps. #17, 18 19, 26 and 33 for example.

  • That's how the New York Tabloids work. They also use phrases like "Guv", "Bam" instead of "Obama" and of course "boy toy". Should we be using what they use exactly or adapt it? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    • They still should not be in all caps, even if they are in the original article. BUC (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*ref #53 remove "www."

  • His awards are listed in the infobox and at the end of the article. So do we really need a section listing them as well?
  • There are numerous awards listed in the section that aren't listed in the infobox. The infobox is really only for the big MLB awards, not the amateur and professional awards of lesser importance. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to wonder if those awards should be in the article at all. BUC (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done though not by me, the list has been pruned and inserted in a table. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Early life" section is so short, does it really need sub-sections?
  • Done I wasn't married to having sub-sections. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he has appeared on Gillette Fusion commercials along with Tiger Woods and Roger Federer" wasn't Thierry Henry in that ad too?
  • I don't know if Henry was in the American ads, because by and large, we don't know who he is. I'll check on it in sourcing and add his name if appropriate. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer is that the campaign initially featured Woods, Federer and Henry, but in the U.S., Jeter replaced Henry for reasons of notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the logic behind the sub-sections in the "Major leagues" section?
  • There is more info in the Major Leagues section than was in the Early Life section, so I think sub-sections make more sense here. But if it's your opinion that they should go, the sub-sections will be merged. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Why does one cover the first four year of his career, one cover the next four years and the last one cover almost seven years.

BUC (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'm not sure. Maybe the last one should be broken up into two, I'll look at it. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand the reason for these sections. What happened in 99, 2003 and 2007 to merit the start of a new section? BUC (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Those breaks are arbitrary, other than the fact that they are about even. Another FA, Mariano Rivera, does the same thing. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section breaks does not make a good argument that the article is well-organized; perhaps there was a reason Mariano Rivera's career is divided by those year breaks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, arbitrary section breaks removed. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All comments have been responded to. Is it ready for promotion? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lead is kind of lifeless, mostly made up of counts of the number of awards he's won. I would consider mentioning the 2001 Oakland flip throw play in the lead (which needs a livelier description in the article body as well). I also object to the use of the term "dynasty" in the lead. This follows the sloppy meaning of "won a few championships in succession", when its real meaning is "dominated over a long period of time despite complete turnovers in personnel" (i.e., what a dynasty is in politics). The Yankees of the 1920s-1960s were a dynasty; the Yankees of the late 1990s were not. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think about how to spice up the lead, but I would argue that the Yankees were a dynasty, and possibly still are. From 1995 to the present, the Yankees have made the postseason every year except 2008, despite turnover on the roster of everyone except Jeter, Posada, Rivera, and Pettitte (though he left for a few years). They've won seven AL pennants and four World Series championships (with the 2009 World Series still pending). Plenty of sportswriters and fans would say they were a dynasty, though you could argue if it's still alive or not, or if not when it died.[2] --Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you'd be on surer grounds referring to the team's "dominant period" rather than "dynasty", but that's just my view I guess. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, as dynasties are subjective, and often can't be defined until after the point, hence this can be debated. (The NHL is the only professional sport that defines a dynasty, and some of those have lasted four or five years). --Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article, just on an initial glance, doesn't appear to be ready for FA status. Information is listed in places indiscriminately (why a section dedicated to dates on which he recorded milestones?), and information is missing in many other places. There are just five words on his 1997 season, one sentence on 1998, but 4 paragraphs on 2001. There doesn't seem to be much balance in the attention that is given to summarizing each year of his career. 2001 may have been a busy year for the Yankees and Jeter, but it shouldn't get undue weight attached to it, in contrast to the previously mentioned seasons. Similarly, an entire paragraph is dedicated to him clashing with Chad Curtis - I don't see why this is worth writing so much about. There are no mentions of him making the All-Star team in the season summaries... I don't know, it just seems like this part was quickly glossed over.

There are a lot of places that could benefit from citations being added. Some paragraphs don't have a single citation until the last sentence. Also, the year breaks need to be there to divide up the prose in digestable chunks. Otherwise, the article will go on forever. I think adding a break in right when he became captain is a fine place to have one. Perhaps the others can be done based on the Yankees dynasty years, or years in which he signed contracts. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Jeter just recently won the Roberto Clemente Award for his charitable work, which leads me to believe a brief sentence on it in the appropriate section would be beneficial. Also, the "consummate professional" bit from the lead isn't backed up in the body, to my knowledge. More on this could potentially go in the section on his playing attributes. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Derek_Jeter/archive1&oldid=1138458688"