Talk:McDoolan (baseball)

Lack of information

In case this article's reviewer is unfamiliar with baseball from the 19th century, I would like to mention that this is all the information known about McDoolan, but it still addresses the main aspects of the topic (as McDoolan is notable only for pitching in that one game). Oriolesfan8 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I don't think any reviewer would pass an article with less than 500 characters of prose. Good articles need to be broad. If the information that would make this article sufficiently broad doesn't exist, then the article will never be a GA. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if there is very little information available, it still needs to be broad in its coverage. And that means a lot more context: what were the circumstances in which he played in his only game? What have commentators said about the guy? Why, exactly, is he significant?--Batard0 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to mention more main aspects of the topic to be a GA; I think it would be very tough to pass an article about someone whose first name is not even known. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I am withdrawing the nomination. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)