Talk:Art Houtteman

Good Article review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is very close to passing. However, there are a few things I would like to see changed before listing it as a Good Article. As for the criteria:

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Please see my comments below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Again, I have identified my concerns below.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I will place this review on hold for seven days. Please address my concerns below over the next seven days. Notify me on my talk page if you are ready for reevaluation earlier.

Per the recommendation on the Good Article Nominations page, I have fixed several minor errors.

• I understand that one of the defining features of Houtteman was his “hard luck”, but claiming that things happened on the field because of bad luck is speculative and unencyclopedic. I have left in the statements about people believing he had bad luck, as I feel this is important. I believe this is sufficient to inform the reader about the possibility of bad luck plaguing his career.

My remaining concerns are as follows:

• In the lead, I think it would read much better if the year (1945) was moved to the previous sentence (“Houtteman was signed in 1945 by…”).
• In the “Early life” section, a reference is needed immediately following the quotation (“perfect pitching motion”).
• In the “Hard luck Houtteman” subsection, you should include the abbreviation for earned run average, as you use the abbreviation later (eg. “an earned run average (ERA) of 5.33”).
• Later in this subsection, it’s a little confusing that he is named the best prospect in the International League. A mention of the fact that he was sent back to Buffalo would help.
• Three sentences later (“Despite his newfound top prospect status, Houtteman remained a top prospect as he began the 1947 season in Buffalo.”), I’m confused again. It would be more clear if “remained a top prospect as he” was removed.
• The third sentence in the “Hard luck Houtteman” section was quite confusing the first time I read it (specifically “looking at a firm spot” and “laying a foundation of”).
• Later in that paragraph, Newhouser’s quotation needs a reference.
• In the “Ace of the staff” subsection, MVP should be written out the first time it is used (“Most Valuable Player (MVP)”).
• Near the end of the “Military and return to Tigers” subsection, I found “After signing a contract…” confusing. Are you saying that he signed a contract just prior to the 1953 season?
• A reference is needed for Houtteman’s first quotation in the “Cleveland Indians” section.
• In the final paragraph of the “Cleveland Indians” section, “in the doghouse” seems too colloquial. Is there a better way of phrasing this?
• In addition, the sentence in which this is found just seems to have too much going on. Can it be split up into a couple of sentences?
• “Doghouse” is also used later in the paragraph.
• In the final paragraph of the “Baltimore Orioles and minor leagues” section, the word “impressive” should be replaced with something that is less point of view (for example, the statistics that made this impressive).

Please note that this is the first time I have performed a Good Article review, so I am open to feedback if you believe any of my comments to be in error. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the only ones I haven't addressed are three of the final four points. The "doghouse" term is rather colloquial, yes, but I'm not sure of a proper synonym that would work well. The reason why impressive is okay, in my opinion, is because it comes directly from the reference noted at the end of the sentence, hence why i used it. Wizardman 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we give an explanation for "in the doghouse", then? Something along the lines of "There was talk about Houtteman being in the doghouse, or out of favor with the team's management, during the 1956 season..." might work. That way, it would also take care of explaining what it means later in the paragraph. As for the word "impressive", I looked over the reference and thought that it would be okay to keep it as long as the statement is attributed to someone rather than just appearing as a point of view statement. If you're fine with the phrasing now, we can consider that point finished as well. I will look over the article again to make sure it's al good. If it is, I will pass it as soon as we can figure out how to work on the "doghouse" issue (if you're not happy with the suggestion I made). Thanks for your hard work, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I looked the whole thing over again. Aside from waiting for your response to the doghouse thing, I wanted to bring up two hree final points.

1. At the end of the first paragraph of the "Military and return to Tigers" section, it seems awkward to end a quotation with an abbreviation. I assume that it's quoted directly from a newspaper, but "Camp Pickett, Va." doesn't seem right. My preference would be to remove "Va." since Camp Pickett is wikilinked. If you disagree and want it left this way, this is one that I'm willing to let slide.
2. The final word in the following quotation: "We’ll be back in the first division this season because Art Houtteman is back. Houtteman makes us at least a dozen games beter than last years." is awkward. Is that how it appears in the source? Gramatically, the "s" should not be there.

You've done a great job with my recommendations. I'll check back when I see that there has been some activity (I have the article on my watchlist). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The doghouse suggestion sounds good. As for the other two things I'll take a look and fix them tonight. Wizardman 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added in the clarification about the doghouse, so it's just those final two suggestions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for helping out with it as well. Wizardman 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed, and I am passing this article as a Good Article. Thank you for your hard work and feedback. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Art Houtteman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211123859/http://www.baseballlibrary.com:80/ballplayers/player.php?name=Art_Houtteman_1927 to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Art_Houtteman_1927
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.baseballindex.org/tbi.asp?a=srch&do=true&src=ppl&txtfname=Art&txtlname=Houtteman

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)