Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 18:01, 19 June 2007.

J. R. Richard[edit]

I spent a week writing this article before sending it to GAC. It was promoted, and now I think it's ready for FAC. It meets Featured article criteria since it is well-written, well-sourced, stable, compliable with WP:MOS, has appropriate image licensing and is of suitable length. Please address any issues that this article might have (potential problem could be the fair use image) here. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with a few comments:
    • "Richard collapsed while playing a game of catch before an Astros evening game and suffered a sudden and nearly fatal stroke." - so that means he collapsed due to something else other than stroke? The way this sentence says it suggests he collapsed before having the stroke.
      • Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the reword still has the same mistake. Just swap the stroke and collapse parts: "he had a stroke and collapsed". For comparison, "The bank repossessed my house and I could not repay my loan" has the same mistake; the correct form would be "I could not repay my loan and the bank repossessed my house." Resurgent insurgent 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the stroke had debilitated his reaction time" - debilitated isn't used this way. Just use slowed or decreased.
    • "Richard wore #50 on his jersey" - I don't think # is used as an abbreviation for number around here, and not everyone might be familiar with the convention. Just spell it out.
    • "In the off-season, the Astros traded away Claude Osteen to the St. Louis Cardinals, and lost pitching ace Don Wilson, who committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning at the age of twenty-nine on 1975-01-05.[28]" - how is this sentence related to the rest of the paragraph? I don't see how it's related to Richard at all.
      • Moved to next section, and I added a little note as to why it was relevant. Both of these players were in the starting rotation, and their departures from the team opened up starting rotation spots for J. R. Richard. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few tiny fixes needed. Resurgent insurgent 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not too crazy about the overstretched infobox image and the wild unorthodox coloring. Is these necessary and can't a better fair use image be acquired? 99.244.236.210 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original coloring was the current Astros' colors, but another user changed the colors to the old colors from the 1970s. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not a big fan of the colors in the infobox. I don't like the long one para lead, and would prefer the lead didn't have citations. Also, I'm not sure that pic doesn't fail our first fair use criteria. Quadzilla99 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I see, I think the picture meets the first FUC. Lead also split into two paragraphs, but I've left the citations in the lead. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry it doesn't and based on that I have to oppose. I've edited Hakeem Olajuwon over 500 times, and have done a ton of work on Phil Simms, Mark Bavaro, and Leonard Marshall. I'd like to nominate all of those articles but they're not going to be able to get above GA status because the pics just aren't currently available to make any of them FAs. It's unfortunate but that's the case here. I hate the fair use restrictions as much as anybody, so I'm not some copyright paranoid person who's opposing here. It fails criteria 3 and after Ian Thorpe, I think the policies on fair use pics of living people should be pretty clear. Quadzilla99 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. From my research online, I could not find any free equivalents. There are probably some people who do have free pictures, but I don't know who they are. Also, do you mean criteria 1? Criteria 3 is minimal use, and I think that's covered in the article. Criteria 1 is what I believe you are referring to. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm speaking of the article failing in terms of criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA, sorry for the confusion. The picture fails criteria 1 in my opinion and the article criteria 3. Quadzilla99 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh okay. Thanks for the clarification. Also, you mentioned something about the infobox colors. What do you suggest it be changed to? Feel free to edit the infobox with your color recommendations. If you go back in the history, you'll see that I originally had the current Astros' colors, but another user changed them to the colors from the 70s. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CITATIONS!!!!! great. I have only read the lead and the infobox
    • The infobox is wordy in the awards and highlighs section compared to say Tom Seaver or Fernando Valenzuela. Each line should be shortened to prevent wrap-around.
    • I think the lead for an article of this length should be 3 or 4 paragraphs given that 4 is the max at WP:LEAD.
    • I would link several things in the lead such as basketball, baseball, homeless, high school, depth perception, minor leagues, draft.
    • I would add the word statistical before or after the word pitching in the first para. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed all, except the first point. It's long, because I grouped stats together. I'll split them into separate bullet points, and it will make it longer (but no wrap-around). Nishkid64 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since many people don't know simplified baseball statistics designations such as BB/9 or K/9, I'd rather not simplify it down that much. I've made corrections now, but there still is wraparound for few of the bulletpoints. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - basically much terminology is used awkwardly. See the many of the following for starters.
    • Still unsure about infobox. Unnecessary to link to the same article more than once (E.g., 1979 in baseball)
    • In early life was standing -> stood
    • Still need to link first use of minor league
    • Reword "exercised a low hits per nine innings (H/9IP) ratio" maybe just change verb to compiled.
      • I've seen it used many times in baseball writing, but I guess our target audience is the general public, so "compiled" would be more suitable. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I recall my grammar correctly which is faster than that of most major league pitchers modifies the prior noun which is slider. I think you need to reword to speed of over 93 so that it is modifying speed.
      • I've changed it now; tell me what you think. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • called up into the big leagues is usually phrased as called up to the big leagues
      • Didn't sound right for me, but I guess that's how it should be phrased. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Willoughby threw just two batters into the fourth inning, -> either Willoughby threw to just two batters into the fourth inning, or Willoughby faced just two batters into the fourth inning

--TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object (reiterated) The article needs a thorough copyedit. If nothing else please take it to WP:PR/WP:BIOPR or WP:LOCE before bringing it here. I could quickly find 5 more bad grammar/usage errors and you or I could fix them and then I would have to point out 5 more to object. Here are two quickies from a glance at the next section.
    • "His 3.02 ERA was slightly higher from the previous season" -> His 3.02 ERA was slightly higher than the previous season.
      • Your version is wrong. It's "higher than that of previous season".
    • "Regardless of his start to the season" -> Despite his start to the season.
    • I don't see any problem with the previous version. In any case, I have fixed it now. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • If you are going to be able to get the proper picture to overcome Quadzilla's objection above, I will spend the time on a copy edit. Otherwise send it to one of the places I mentioned above for a more thorough review.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said that I could not obtain a free equivalent anywhere, and my best option as of now is to use a fair use image. Given my options, I don't think I could really flag down someone who just so happens to have a picture of Richard (he pitched 20-30 years ago). Anyway, I'll put it up for WP:LOCE for now, but any help from you would be appreciated. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets criteria Dinojerm 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It meets the criteria. Cbrown1023 talk 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have copy edited this article as well as I can (not knowing anything about baseball or Richard), so those reviewers above who had copy editing concerns should re-peruse the article in a day or two. I have left quite a few internal comments that the editors can respond to (I could not change phrases such as "knocked up," not really knowing what they mean in baseball - to me, it sounded like the pitcher was pregnant). I have one major concern after I read the article. Do we know nothing about Richard's life except his baseball statistics? There is very little in the article except for that. What did he do outside of pitching (there was one tiny bit on fishing)? The article seemed too focused for an FA - not quite comprehensive, yet. For example, nothing is said of his high school basketball skills (they are just asserted, not proven). What about his family? We hear he has two ex-wives, but we don't even get their names! Does he have children? When did he marry exactly? You have the exact dates of every game he played in - surely we can acquire these other basic facts. Did he participate in any charities while he was a player? I guess I was just looking for a more well-rounded portrait and instead I was beseiged with numbers. Biographies should not only be stat cards, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the copyediting, Awadewit. I'm in the process of making the necessary corrections now. Anyway, from my research, I never could find any specific details about Richard's life outside of baseball. He's not as well known of a player to be documented in biographies, and most of the stuff I could find came from statistical websites which provide logs of every single game he played in. In any case, I will see if I can dig up any more information, but I'm not too confident that it will happen. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No Sports Illustrated in the '70s detailing every aspect of players' lives? What a shame. :) Awadewit | talk 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a quote from a 1978 SI issue; there was also an article on Richard and Ryan in the April 21, 1980 issue, and a profile of Richard in the June 1980 Baseball Digest, but they don't seem to include anything new about his background (they do include some of the same "early life" material about his HS play). The 1978 SI article is a little better, though. It would be useful if we could add to the article some quotes from contemporaries about Richard; it's a bit dry at the moment, and I'm concerned that some of the game-by-game details cause the forest to be overlooked for the trees. MisfitToys 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, I was joking there. I was under the impression that those SI biographies are a bunch of PR rubbish. Nearly tabloid status in some respects. Am I wrong about this? Awadewit | talk 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was replying only indirectly, so the joke was understood as intended. But SI is published by Time, so it can likely be regarded more seriously than some others; their reporting is pretty good. MisfitToys 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA. It does seem kind of unfair though. Trevor GH5 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that this seems manifestly unfair. Would a picture of a baseball do? You know, not all biography pages have pictures of their subjects. Some never had their portrait painted or their head sculpted for posterity. In those cases, we often use something related to the figure. Could we do that here until a picture is available? Nishkid64 could post a request for an image or even to write to Richard himself and hope something comes up eventually, but until then, how about a picture of a baseball or a stadium or something? Let's be a little creative. I thought that the idea here was to produce excellent articles. The article can still be good without the picture, don't you think? This is not an article about a piece of art in which the text is referring to a picture that we cannot see, in which I might see the problem. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the image can be a problem, but I think an image of a baseball could suffice if it was featured on the Main Page or something. It's really hard to track down anyone who may have a picture of J. R. Richard, and is willing to freely license it. It's even harder, since I'm not 18 yet :-P. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, meets criteria, I can't find fault. Mallanox 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets criteria and very well written. Kudos to Nish. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a and formatting. Here are a few examples of why the whole text needs scrutiny.
    • "Richard led the league twice in strikeouts, once in earned run average, and three times in hits allowed per nine innings between 1976 and 1979, winning at least 18 games each year." Does the "between 1976 and 1979" apply to the earned run average too? Word order.
    • Metric equivalents, please.
    • "two hundred", but "52" and "8"—the spell-out boundary is usually nine–10. Make it consistent.
    • "4-11 win-loss"—two en dashes required.
    • Why are plain years linked? Tony 07:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/J._R._Richard/archive1&oldid=1144732508"