Talk:Jason Heyward/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by EricEnfermero in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll be glad to review this. I hope to make some initial comments in the next couple of days. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Initial feedback

edit
  • I don't detect any copyvios and the images have appropriate licensing. Consider adding a caption to the one that is not captioned.
  • Looking at the GA Toolbox, Checklinks shows some problems with dead external links and at least one link (AJC) that doesn't end up at the article.
  • I'm a little concerned about original research or assertions that are inconsistent with the cited sources. Before we begin a section-by-section review of the writing, can we ensure that all of the cited facts are really supported by the sources? Here are some examples:
    • In the early life section, there is confusion about the youth sports he played. The article says he was good at every sport he tried, but the point of the source was that he only liked baseball. The article later says that he continued to play basketball in high school; the source says he briefly played basketball but that he played only baseball in high school.
    • In the 2010 Braves section, fourth paragraph, that sentenced is supported, but it's close paraphrasing.
    • In the 2011 section, his Cardinals MLB.com profile doesn't currently reflect a shoulder injury or an MRI.
    • Same section, the source doesn't support that he came back from the DL with a visibly altered swing; it posits that he might have lost some power to drive the bat through the swing.
    • Same paragraph, I don't think the cited source supports overcompensating for pain.
    • In the skills profile, second paragraph, the source only supports comparisons to Aaron and Pujols, not any of the other players or additional commentary.
      • The other three players are sourced earlier in the article, so there I referenced The New Yorker source from the Early life and amatuer career section. I left in the assertion about the subject's similarities of attributes, including size, build, and athleticism, because, as far as I can tell, the source thus demonstrates. Elcid.ruderico (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's all of the sourcing issues I see at the moment. Will stop there for tonight. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, EricEnfermero, for taking the time to review. I have been on vacation but will be free to address the points you raised in about one week.Elcid.ruderico (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem. It looked like you had been away for a few days. No worries. Thank you for your work on the article so far. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Now, with some time freed up, I've also made modifications throughout the article. Career stats are now current. Elcid.ruderico (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • Since the review began, an editor changed his middle name to Alias and added a note that Adenolith was just a rumor. I notice that BR and MLB.com now reflect a middle name of Alias. We probably just need to remove the SB Nation ref after the name. SB Nation is sometimes seen as a questionable source anyway.
  • Place quotes around the nicknames. The nicknames should be mentioned and sourced later in the article.

Early life and amateur career

edit
  • I would take out the stuff about his father and having fun. There's no way to really know how the kids "always" answered and it's just not encyclopedic. You can substitute a sentence about Heyward identifying his father as an influence on his youth baseball involvement (or something like that).

Minor Leagues

edit

To be continued... EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for addressing these points. In the GA Toolbox on this review page, the link to Checklinks is actually titled "External Links". It is near the upper right corner of this review page. It will show you a list of all of your external links in the article, several of which are highlighted in red right now, indicating that the URLs have changed or are dead. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Links recheck: Elcid.ruderico (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
  1. 20 – Title:Top 100 Prospects: No. 1−20 – Publisher: Baseball America — This link is still good. However, the site takes a while to access, so the link finder shows an error.
  2. 22 – Jason Heyward, of – Publisher: Baseball America — Same as #20. Same domain.
  3. 41 – The Hall of Very Good — Swapped out for an MLB.com article.

Minor leagues (cont'd)

edit
  • There are some problems with MOS:ACRO involving switching back and forth between the full term Baseball America and the acronym BA. Either use the full term throughout, or use Baseball America (BA) the first time and just BA every time after that. The full term might just be better since BA might also suggest batting average.
  • In the third paragraph of the Myrtle Beach section, it mentions lefties and righties. For encyclopedic purposes, I would stick with the formal terms like left-handed pitchers.

Atlanta Braves

edit

To be continued. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This review completely slipped my mind, but I hope to take a look at the rest of it by this weekend. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
EricEnfermero, it's been over two more weeks; this really needs your attention now. Your review here will be three months old in another seven days; I hope you can finish before then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Atlanta Braves (cont'd)

edit

I'm so sorry that I've lost track of this multiple times. I'm picking back up in the 2011 subsection.

No sweat. It happens – I've been busy too. Thanks for keeping up with it! Elcid.ruderico (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

St. Louis Cardinals

edit

Skills profile

edit

Once we get these things addressed, I may make some copyedits to optimize the phrasing and then I think we'll be able to pass this. I feel like I am already giving you enough to do, so I did not want to quibble over every tiny phrasing issue.

Thanks for your patience! EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The entry certainly meets GA criteria now. Great work on a comprehensive entry covering a popular player. The sourcing alone required an astounding level of work to get to this point. Thanks for your work! EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply