Talk:Chief Wahoo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is going to be a quick fail, I am afraid. First, there are still valid maintenance tags (the lead is incredibly short for such an incredibly long article), which brings me to another point, the length. This article is not written in summary style, and frankly, some information is irrelevant to Chief Wahoo. For example, look at the 1970s scoreboard animations section. " At 137-by-54 feet with an 86-by-29-foot lighted screen, the scoreboard was described as the largest "single unit board" in the country. Animation was provided by Hilda Terry, creator of the comic strip Teena.[13] Technical difficulties blamed on weather conditions and pollutants from Lake Erie initially prevented the scoreboard from working properly," does not relate at all whatsoever to the subject of this article. Around the time Bavasi added Chief Wahoo to the Indians hats in 1986, he also banned "derogatory" banners at the stadium.[18] The elimination of references to Cleveland on the uniforms, including replacing the old style hats with Chief Wahoo, led to speculation that the team might be moved to another city.[18][19] This sub-storyline of moving to another city is completely irrelevant.

It's hard to believe, but there is also missing information. For example, in the Move to Progressive Field section, The team considered dropping the logo around this time,[1][2] but it was ultimately retained. They considered dropping the logo/mascot, and that warrants only one clause? Why did they consider that? What made them keep it? It is baffling to me that warrants no coverage, but pedantic details on the scoreboard do.

Also on that section, at least part of the final paragraph belongs in a criticism section or something, but has little to do with the action of moving to Progressive/Jacobs Field. Then we somehow jump to 2009. How exactly does that make sense? And then we jump back to the early 1990s? The allegations of a phase out are hardly part of "history".

The stakeholders' beliefs section needs to be renamed; how exactly do you determine who is a "stakeholder"?

I almost wonder if the criticism of the logo belongs in a new article as a content fork. It seems to make the article excessively long.

The notable protests section is also sort of arbitrarily thrown in, and makes no sense sequentially.

So for the aforementioned reasons, I must fail the article, as it does not meet the good article criteria at this time. However, obviously, much work has gone into crafting a compelling narrative, and the article seems to be meticulously cited, so consider this a "peer review" on how this article can achieve the criteria. This is a tough subject, and you have done a lot of great work, it just needs refinement at this time. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)