Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joey Hamilton/archive2
- 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 Karanacs 19:23, 3 November 2009 [1].
- Featured article candidates/Joey Hamilton/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Joey Hamilton/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because prior to the first FAC it underwent a peer review by Brianboulton (talk · contribs) and Finetooth (talk · contribs). It also underwent a review by DoubleBlue (talk · contribs) (here). Following the FAC, Giants2008 (talk · contribs) reviewed it on the talk page. Finally, 66.213.50.2 (talk · contribs) peer reviewed it very recently. Thus, after five reviews before and after the FAC, I believe it is ready to become a Featured Article. Thanks, Giants27(c|s) 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Baseball Cube, is uneditable by the public (however you can send them an e-mail telling them about any inaccuracies) so I am of the belief that it's reliable. While Our Sports Central is fully reliable since it doesn't have any random blogger speaking their mind, it's simply an organization that reports on minor league sports. Finally, Fanhouse is usually unreliable however there are numerous writers who are not your random person and actually have a history with major publications. The author of that particular article won some writing award in 2004 or so, which in my opinion makes that particular article reliable.--Giants27(c|s) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After a look, I couldn't find anything that proves my belief that they're reliable for the Baseball Cube and Our Sports Central, thus I replaced them with more reliable sources. However, I have kept the FanHouse ref because although it is called a "blog", it is owned by AOL and the writer along with others have received accolades for their work, which IMO shows accuracy.--Giants27(c|s) 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Baseball Cube, is uneditable by the public (however you can send them an e-mail telling them about any inaccuracies) so I am of the belief that it's reliable. While Our Sports Central is fully reliable since it doesn't have any random blogger speaking their mind, it's simply an organization that reports on minor league sports. Finally, Fanhouse is usually unreliable however there are numerous writers who are not your random person and actually have a history with major publications. The author of that particular article won some writing award in 2004 or so, which in my opinion makes that particular article reliable.--Giants27(c|s) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review, or lack thereof: No free images to use? Did you try looking through Flickr and possibly emailing some of the copyright holders to see if they will change their license? NW (Talk) 19:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do recognize there is an issue with it having no images. However, I've looked through Flickr a few times since I started work back in May, however the resulting image is copyrighted and out of focus and because of this, I opted to not contact the author about releasing it under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.--Giants27(c|s) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – No dabs present. Will offer a full review if there's ever a time that I'm not swamped in real life. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hamilton had stints in training camp and the minor leagues which included some of the Padres and Reds affilates." Didn't like the way this read when I first saw it, and I think I know why. Try changing "which included" to "with"and put an apostrophe at the end of Reds, and this will be better."Hamilton became eligible for election in the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2009". "in" (first use) → "to".Early life: "He attended Statesboro High School in Statesboro, Georgia." The previous sentence says he was from Statesboro, and it should be clear enough that there's where the high school was. Consider dropping the last two words for tighter prose.I see some overlinking in the early part of the body. Basic words like elbow and sue do not need links, which can clutter up the text if overused."He was elected to the Georgia Southern University sports hall of fame in 1997." From reading the source, it looks like the official title is the Georgia Southern University Athletics Department Hall of Fame. If so, I'd imagine that should be used in the article.San Diego Padres: "but ended winning the game 6–3 after Phil Clark hit a three run home run." Missing "up", and there should be a hyphen in "three run".In the next sentence, remove the space after the dash in the win–loss record.- "In his fourth year in San Diego in 1997". Try "In 1997, his fourth year in San Diego".
Disabled list would be good to link to, since non-baseball fans won't immediately know what that is."There was a rumored trade around the 1998 MLB trade deadline that would have sent Hamilton to the Detroit Tigers but the trade never materialized." This is an example of redundant phrasing, with three "trade"s in a single sentence. Try making the third one "it", as in "but it never materialized".- Should the "game one"s and such be changed to "Game 1" etc.?
Will look at the rest later. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After San Diego: "Once again in 2000" reads like he started the season in Syracuse multiple times that year, not for the second time in his career (the intention). A prose tweak will be needed here and at the start of the next paragraph ("For the first time in 2001").
Final years: move the Cincinnati Reds link to the previous section, unless there's already one there that I'm missing. In situations where wikilinks are appropriate, it's usually best to provide them on the first possible use.Comma after "and optioned him to their Triple-A affiliate", and another after "Hamilton appeared in 11 games with the Beavers".Not sure if I mentioned this before, but consider removing italics from reference publishers that aren't printed publications, such as Georgia Southern University.- Giants2008 (17–14) 22:13, 28 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.