Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Krichell/archive2

< 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 Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [1].

Paul Krichell

edit

Paul Krichell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Secret account 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krichell was one of the scouts of the New York Yankees from 1920 to his death. His involvement included signing several future Hall of Famers. Everything in the FAC, with the exception of adding some extra stats to his playing career which I would add later tonight was taken care of. It might need a copyedit as I expanded it another 1,000 or so bytes. Thanks for Wizardman for his copyediting of the article. Thanks Secret account 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: One nitpick: be consistent in your page number formats. Sometimes "p." is used, sometimes not. Otherwise all sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I tried to be nitpicky to make up for knowing the material well and possibly not seeing jargon issues. Here's what I found:
    • "His recommendation of Stengel for manager of the Yankees helped persuade their front office to hire Stengel in 1948." The second Stengel could just say "him" as I think it's fairly obvious who that would refer to.
    • "The St. Louis Browns, signed Krichell in 1911. He was used as a backup catcher during his career." comma unnecessary, plus these two sentences would work better combined, I think.
    • "Krichell was the starting catcher for the Buffalo Bisons when Babe Ruth made his proffesional debut" misspelling.
    • I don't think Lou Gehrig needs to be linked in the image caption, since he's linked in the two paragraphs next to the image.
    • "Krichell's most significant signing for the Yankees was of Lou Gehrig," of should be removed, doesn't sound right with it included.
    • "(who never advanced to the Majors)" when used informally such as this, majors is lowercase, at least that how I've seen it every time.
    • "and was planning to sign both of them when Barrow telegramed from New York," telegraphed sounds better, though if you prefer it as is, the spelling is telegrammed.
    • "Krichell referred Greenberg to the Detroit Tigers, who offered him a contract." I'd prefer a cite that shows Krichell was the one that referred Greenberg to Detroit; I don't mind it as is, but I could see other users wanting that.
    • "He signed Rizzuto for $75 a month ($0 in 2010)" I can't figure out why this isn't showing up right (the template format looks fine to me). I'd just remove it but I don't know if it's required to keep in since all the other figures have it.
    • "Harry Nicolas was a high-school baseball star" high school isn't hyphenated.
    • I would prefer that frequently-used books (i.e. Eig, Frommer) be split out into the References section, with the reflist becoming a Notes section. This way it's easier to find them rather than trying to find its first use hidden in the refs.

Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Opposed at the first FAC, but don't think that's necessary here. I did read through the whole article and came up with the following thoughts:

  • Playing and managing career: "The St. Louis Browns signed Krichell in 1911 where was used...". Grammatical error, and the order isn't great either. How about "Krichell signed in 1911 with the St. Louis Browns, who used him as a backup catcher during his career."?
  • The issues from the first FAC about the given reference not saying Krichell was platooning with Jim Stephens or having a weak fielding percentage for the league remain unresolved.
  • Discovery of Gehrig: The Yankee Stadium link goes to the new stadium, not the old one that is probably intended to be linked. Also, I'm not sure the link is needed, given the presence of one earlier.
  • "Huggins sent Gehrig to the Hartford Senators, where after a hot start in Hartford". Some redundancy that can be removed there; also, I'm unsure "hot start" is the kind of tone FAs should have.
  • 1920s: "for a outfielder named Dusty Cooke." "a" → "an". Do the same for "a injury-prone backup outfielder".
  • 1930s: Comma needed before "during an interview with J. G. Taylor Spink".
  • The Sporting News should be italicized.
  • 1940–1950s: "The Yankees send Krichell to scout him...". "send" → "sent".
  • If his Stengel recommendation is sourced here, it probably doesn't need to be referenced in the lead.
  • Final days: Include the abbreviated version of BBWAA right after the full version, in parentheses. This helps avoid confusion, even in cases like this where most people will figure it out easily.
  • Italics would be good for New York Journal American. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: No issues with the three photographs; all are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the two were sent to the Boston Red Sox for cash considerations - I am unsure what this means.

I think I can provisionally support pending the above query. I am okay with the prose and comprehensiveness - I can't see any prose clangers otherwise, but someone else might be able to iron prose out a little more, which would be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
  1. Why are websites (as opposed to books, periodicals, journals, newspapers) italicized in the citations (see WP:ITALICS). (I think this is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Book sources that are used more than once, and referenced with a short citation, could be listed in a separate Biblio or References section to make it easier to see what the short citations refer to without having to scan the entire list of Notes.
    Fixing it should be done by tomorrow. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prose review needed: (samples ONLY). "He started out as a catcher ... " He started "out"? What... his professional career, semi-pro, what? He had no baseball experience prior to that? High school? "Krichell also spent part of the 1909, and 1910, seasons ... " Why the commas? "Krichell signed in 1911 with the St. Louis Browns, who used him as a backup catcher during his career." During his career is redundant. Samples only, prose check needed. "He ended up on the same train ... " colloquial. The prose is choppy and unconnected in several places, with no relationship between sentences. "Krichell and Coakley decided to meet Gehrig in Yankee Stadium for ... " decided to meet ?
    Asked a couple of editors if they could copyedit the article for me, I don't understand the colloquial part, fixed all the rest of your suggestions. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is there nothing on his childhood or early background in sources?
    I went though the sources, what I got is the only thing found, there isn't no biography of the subject. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "During a 1912 game against the Detroit Tigers, Ty Cobb stole second, third, and home plate in the same inning against Krichell." Non-baseball fans may not understand this sentence (that he was catching, you steal against a catcher), and the sentence will seem strangely out of place for non-baseball fans, better context needed. Was he considered a weak catcher? In the next paragraph, we see he was released, but this could all flow better.
    He was considered a weak catcher but I don't have the source for it without going to original research, as for that statement, I can't reword it on a non-baseball way. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried, but it still doesn't help a non-baseball person understand that you steal against a catcher. Don't know how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "He resigned on June 27, 1918, after two wins were taken from him because he used a player not under contract.[13]" No more detail? For someone considered one of baseball's best scouts, there seems to be a lack of detail. "He worked with the shipyards during World War I." Choppy prose, unconnected to text around it, or some rearrangement of paragraphs needed in this entire section. Nothing about his time with the Red Sox? It just seems strange to me that we have so little detail on someone "Considered to be one of the greatest scouts in baseball history," what library research has been done?
    There's nothing special about being a coach in a MLB team, you won't find information on that unless you do something really extraordinary, that goes for all baseball coaches articles. As with the other information, I think I could find it in my sources, especially the New York Baseball Coach one (should be manager), I think there was further detail on the incident, need to look at google books. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "Barrow thought Krichell was the right man to upgrade the scouting staff ... " Why?
    Source didn't give why. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This source shows a different quote for what Krichell said when he saw Gehrig; double check your source? Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Krichell is considered one of the greatest scouts in baseball history" has only one source; is one book sufficient to make this statement, or should it be attributed? (The book is, after all, about the Yankees rather than baseball in general.)
    There's a few more books, and a website that the baseball wikiproject approved as reliable that says that. Should I add the website. Secret account 04:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "brilliant" polished story is not woven here, the prose needs work, and the reader does not see a compelling story of why he was the greatest ever, or what distinguished him from other scouts.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to work on the article when I could, I exausted all the avaliable sources btw the NYT. There hasn't been a book written on the subject, or Yankees scouting in general, I heard in one of my sources that Krichell wrote an book about the subject of scouting, let me see if I could find that, but yea you do make some valid points, which some of which I can't fix. The quote was on the book (which I own). I was planning to do a dissation on the Yankees scouting system when I get to my PHD, I'm planning to visit the Baseball Hall of Fame in November. Maybe I could complete the story there. I'll work on the prose tommorrow morning. Wait until Monday to see what I could find with his early life etc. Secret account 01:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, pls ping me when you want me to have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending, I intend to search my local library database to see if there are more sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must sustain my oppose on 1c, that a through literature survey is needed. I have access to my library's online databases from home, and placed a list of sources that turn up with only that search. A "real" trip to a library is needed to track down these additional sources and complete this article. Sorry, Secret-- it's still a fine article, but just needs a bit more research and polishing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've begun a read through and copy-edit, just a few points I can't clear up.

  • I tweaked the lead (I thought "dynasty" was a bit too grand!) but would it be possible to put some numbers on how successful his legacy was: i.e. how many trophys, championships (or whatever else baseball has, pardon my ignorance!) the team won in his time? Also (I haven't finished the rest of the article yet) is there anything in the main text which comments directly on this. I haven't noticed anything on a skim through but I could be wrong.
  • The Yankees had a "two man scouting rotation". Did Krichell replace both of them and do the job on his own, or become one of the two men?
  • Agree with the comment on Ty Cobb above, but improving it is beyond my baseball knowledge.
  • I think the Gehrig section has too much prominence, and is only connected with Krichell in passing (unless there's something I haven't come to yet). It reads too much like a description from an autobiography or collection of reminiscences and is far too detailed. I've cut it back, feel it could go even briefer, but appreciate that I could be missing something here. Happy to discuss!
  • Similar with the Foxx and Cochrane section. Is it significant he failed to sign them? Unless they went on to incredible careers, I'd cut this paragraph. As it is, I've trimmed it.
    • I cut the paragraph, it was a primary source so who knows if it was Krichell, though I have secondary sources that they were scouted by the Yankees, and Krichell worked in the area so I'm 90% sure the story is true, but it belongs on the individual players pages. They weren't a "discovery" by Krichell standards. Secret account 23:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he drive Ruth to hospital and then take a train to NY? I've tweaked it to read like this.
  • When did Krichell sign Durocher, Lazzeri and Koenig? No year is given, unless it is the same year of Ruth's illness, but it needs making explicit.

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I think I've done what I can, but I've hit the limit of my baseball knowledge so I'm not sure I can do much more. The legacy and scouting style section give a good flavour of why he was so good, but not sure the main bits give quite as strong an impression as I suspect was the case. But I'm not sure it is possible to do much about that. Maybe make it more explicit that he saw what others passed up? It already does to some extent, maybe a touch more? As above, I think it needs some more about his being regarded as the best ever scout. Have any prominent players, writers or commentators said anything to that effect? That might be useful. And I think something about what the team achieved with the players he discovered: i.e. what was the playing record, what did the team win in that time, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarastro1 (talk • contribs)

Comments –

  • I was asked to come back and look at the article, and found quite a few of the "copyedit issues" mentioned by Sandy. Surprising what can creep into an article after you review it, even when good copy-editing occurs.
  • I also made an attempt to find where flow could be improved, and I thought the worst area in this regard was 1940s–1950s, which jumps around from signing to signing, and from the signings to his staff expansion. I think topic sentences of some kind would be helpful in creating flow. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to fix Sarastro, and your concerns by Sunday, if the FA fails by then as many of my book sourcing are arriving, but little about Krichell himself. If the nomination fails by then, I'll take a trip to the Baseball Hall of Fame library during Thanksgiving weekend and I'll likely get to expand it some more. If nothing new shows up there, then that's a problem which can't be fixed. Secret account 02:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources are still needed, then there's a good article in the February 14, 1935 issue of the Sporting News that could be useful. It gives a bit of scouting info when he was on the Red Sox, which isn't covered much here, so there's that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also February 17, 1954, March 21, 1956, and June 12, 1957 could be useful. You probably went through most of these already, but in case you didn't there they are. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea I saw the sources already, with the Red Sox sourcing info, one player mentioned never reached the big leagues, another player didn't play for the Red Sox but for another club, and the last player only played one game as a Red Sox, nothing notable. A could add the Bridgeport information though. Secret account 22:39, 26 September 2010 (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/Paul_Krichell/archive2&oldid=1089083920"