Talk:Walter O'Malley

Failed GA

The main reason I failed this is because it's too short. I'm not an expert in the subject, so I don't know exactly how it can be expanded, but it needs to be made longer. Especially the death section. Hanuab 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review #2

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t meet the requirements for GA status at this time. Here are some comments about what this article does and doesn’t do well, and suggestions to improve it.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• the article lacks broad coverage of O’Malley’s life; a.k.a. there’s not as much information as there should be if it were to be GA status. He’s an importance person in baseball history, so one idea is to see if you can look at any books about him…who knows, maybe your local library might even have one.

• Please add the Persondata template to the article. Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• the picture of O’Malley used in the infobox in fantastic, and adds a lot to the article. Better yet, with it being under a free license, there won’t be any issues over it as the article works its way up to FA status.

• I was disappointed you don’t really get a sense of O’Malley character's or personality when reading the article; maybe by adding quotes about him from other people, or even quotes from him, the reader could get a better sense of what he was like

• As you add more information to address the article’s lack of breadth, I would expand the introduction to a second paragraph that incorporates highlights of his time with Dodgers.

• One of the criteria for GA status is that the article has to be well written; the reason I don’t believe it currently meets this can be seen in the paragraph about his educational background. Three consecutive sentences start with the phrase “He then…”, which is repetitive, reflecting poorly on the prose overall. Try to mix up the sentence more...for example, something like, “O’Malley originaly enrolled at Columbia University….”Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Another example of poor prose; the first sentence of paragraph #3 in the Dodgers section; please make a better transition between stating O'Malley's success and listing the Dodger's pennants

• the continuity of the article is good; definitely keep continuity in mind as more info is added to the article

• I don’t understand why the paragraph about the St. Louis Cardinals cartoon is included in this article; while O’Malley is in the cartoon, it's not really about him, and it’s not referenced either. It’s very detailed; the kind of detail that would be great for the body of the article, but doesn’t mean much in the Pop Culture section

• move the Timeline section to after the Popular Culture section Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• the Timeline isn’t in sync with the article; the body of the article says his wife died after he first went to the Mayo Clinic, yet in the timeline his treatment there is listed after her death

• I’m unsure about the necessity of the timeline; I could see how to some editors, the timeline here is nothing more than list that repeats facts already in the body of the text. Personally, I think it’s a useful way of organizing the events in his life, and a quick reference to boot. As such, it wouldn’t hurt to clean it up; you could include specific dates, like what day the Dodgers actually won the series in ’55, and remove entries that are too general and don’t directly involve O’Malley, such as the entry about the stock market. For now, I recommend keeping the Timeline section in.

• There needs to be a period after the last sentence in the Pop Culture about the HBO documentary…in general, it would be helpful to go over the article and making the wording flow better, and weeding out little errors like thisY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again, the prose could be improved by simply moving the mention of his wife’s death after the sentence about his heart failure and burial.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I like the thoroughness of how the references are formatted; it’s rare to see someone taking the time to fill out the quote part of the cite news template. That said, it might be possible to trim down some of the quotes a little, and list the author of the articles currently used (if possible)

• do you happen to know what his degree from the University of Pennsylvania was (not essential to the article; I’m just curious)

Even though the article didn’t pass it’s GA nomination, I hope I’ve been able to provide helpful suggestions to point the article in the right direction; I can imagine that the frustration that would arise from a review that was so quick to dismiss the article. While the article still needs a good deal of work, it’s well on it’s way to obtaining GA status. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future. Monowi (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. But some issues, see below.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass.

3. Broad in coverage?: Some issues, see below.

4. Neutral point of view?: Some WP:UNDUE issues though, see below.

5. Article stability? Pass.

6. Images?: Pass.

The article, including the lead, needs to address more the move to LA and all the emotions and sense of betrayal and sense of changing the course of baseball. One sports column I found at near random, here, captures it better than this article, for example. Additional comments:

• Relationship with Branch Rickey needs more development.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Other than the move, what new baseball practices did O'Malley institute, if any?
  • Attempted to clarify the importance of the move in the bigger picture and his personal business practices (stability).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Why did Brooklyn attendance decline? What did O'Malley try to do to improve it?
• A "Legacy" section at the end, tracing the importance of the move west, would be useful.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• The "Popular culture" section at the end seems to get WP:UNDUE in length compared to the rest of the article. Moreover, there must have been pop culture references that villified him after the move in New York.
  • The article has more heft so that should address the balance issue here and I refer to the villification in the article now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• The wrong dash is used in many places; the em-dash (wider) one is necessary.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Further comments:

• The lead section has been beefed up, but needs some work. The whole "when the St. Louis Cardinals were the southernmost and westernmost team in the National League and the Kansas City Athletics were the Westernmost team in Major League Baseball" bit is too complicated for the first paragraph of the article; just say "at a time when no team was west of Missouri".Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• The lead section should mention O'Malley forever being villified in Brooklyn.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• The added material on the feud with Branch Rickey is good ... but what was the reason for the feud? Philosophical differences? Power struggle? Jealousy over Rickey's fame? Article never says.
  • I am working from pages 166-168 at google books but 167 is not available online.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you twist and turn the search terms, change the browser, change the computer, etc. you can usually get Google Books to show you any page you like of a "limited preview" book. But after a while it gets so annoying that it's better to go the library and just read it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have done what I can. I have also contacted my co-author who is a great researcher and hope he comes through with some details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Still no explanation for why Brooklyn had an attendance decline, and if O'Malley did anything about it other than discuss a new stadium.
  • I've got nothing. I am at the mercy of other wikipedians, especially my co-author to find any more information on this topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added the basics on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Prose has gotten very choppy — too many short sentences lacking smooth transition. Also some obvious copyediting problems, such as sentences ending without periods, capitalization blunders, unnecessary acronym introductions, etc. I'll make a copyediting run through the article if you want.
  • As far as the acronym I removed J.D. and am not sure if you were referring to others as well. I saw no missing periods or capitalization blunders. However, I made some sentence structure corrections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I did make a copyediting run a while back. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But definite improvement from the last go-around. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

HOF in LEAD debate

Copied from User talk:TonyTheTiger: There's really no need to mention his HoF selection in the lead (apart from the way it was awkwardly phrased); it's a posthumous career honor, akin in many ways to the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Koufax, Cobb and Clemente (the only HoFers with FA or GA status) all were elected in historic circumstances (first player elected, youngest player elected, posthumous special election/first Latin American player elected), and it seems reasonable to only mention the Hall in the intro if the individual's selection was similarly remarkable; besides, there are some HoFers with A-class article status who don't have the HoF mentioned in the lead. MisfitToys (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First you are performing WP:OR saying one HOFer is not quite equal to others. In addition, I have never seen a WP:GA or better HOF article without HOF mentioned in the WP:LEAD. The first several HOF articles I have clicked on all had them in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually saying that one HoFer is not equal to others (although really, the members are not equal in accomplishment, and I don't think anyone would argue that they are); I'm simply saying that some elections are more noteworthy than others, which is simple observation. Casey Stengel and Goose Goslin, for two, don't have the HoF mentioned in the lead. I suppose I'm not completely opposed to mentioning it in the intro, but it should really be at the very end rather than the beginning if it's going to be there. We should primarily explain why he was important; pointing out that he's in the Hall simply notes that he was important without explaining why. MisfitToys (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, Hollywood Walk of Fame is a pay to play scenario like being in Who is Who, Baseball Hall of Fame is much more selective, and prestigious, more akin to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neither Stengel nor Goslin is an FA-class, A-class or GA-class article so you have not produced any examples yet, IMO. Here is the exhaustive list to the best of my abilities. Sandy Koufax, Roberto Clemente, Ty Cobb, and even Veteran's committee selection Dan Brouthers all have HOF in their lead. I concede that a contributor may be less equal than a manager who may be less equal than a player, but this guy has overseen the breaking of the color barrier, the move of baseball west of the Mississippi and been a part of the profligation of free agency. He has changed the game. Sure a first ballot guy is more equal than a last ballot guy who had to get in based on the opinions of his pals on the Veteran's committee in a sense. However, a statement that a person is a HOFer is actually more important in an article where the person is a lesser HOFer who may have slightly less to say. Maybe it does not belong in the first sentence, but it belongs in the LEAD somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted, there are very few articles for HoFers (only six) that have achieved either FA, A or GA status - too small a group to draw broad conclusions about what is necessary to achieve that level, or about what should be uniformly included in the intro. The BioProject for actors, etc. has a guideline about avoiding mention of awards in the opening lines (I'll add that honorary Academy Awards are only occasionally mentioned, usually as a minor note); something similar is noted in the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Lead section, though that applies to titles rather than bios. (And saying that O'Malley "oversaw" the breaking of the color barrier is something of an overstatement; he was the Dodgers' legal counsel at the time, and hardly instrumental in making the decision or carrying it out.) My point is that election to the Hall doesn't actually make anyone more important than they already were; if they were important, then other relevant facts are more useful in illustrating that. Again, if it's to be included in the lead, it should come at the end (especially since the honor was posthumous), after the various accomplishments that led to his selection are covered. As for the Walk of Fame, it's true that recipients have to pay for the installation and upkeep, but they have to be selected first; it's definitely not simply an honor or recognition that can be bought, as Who's Who appears to be. MisfitToys (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I am counting seven Sandy Koufax, Roberto Clemente, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Happy Chandler, Ozzie Smith and even Veteran's committee selection Dan Brouthers. All use it in the lead. Comparing baseball bios to movies is like comparing actors to baseball stadia. While a movie may not need award-winning in the lead, a stadium doesn't either. Bios are different. I don't know what guideline you are talking about for actors, but I know almost all GA, A or FA actresses that have won awards say so in the lead. I have been involved in debates at WP:FAC, WP:GAC and WP:GAR over this exact matter. What guideline are you talking about? By the way, do you feel O'Malley was given an honorary HOF membership as opposed to a normal election? If so you are mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned in the lead. It's the most prestigious honor in the game. You need to know in the lead that this guy is not just Joe Schlobotnik. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Bugs. It ought to be mentioned in the lead. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it should definitely be in the lead, no question. Wizardman 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Count me in with those who think it should be in the lead. If you want to make a comparison to Hollywood, perhaps a better one would be an actor who has won an academy award -- as a reader I'd expect that to be in the lead.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the lead, there's no way he has so many higher achievments that it isn't included... because there really aren't any higher acievements. If you're concerned about "awkward phrasing", then re-write it. Blackngold29 22:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image listed for deletion

An image used in this article, File:19580428 Walter O'Malley Time Magazine Cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Walter O'Malley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118024132/http://www.forbes.com:80/leadership/2007/09/28/baseball-omalley-brooklyn-lead-cx_sm_0928dodgers.html to http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2007/09/28/baseball-omalley-brooklyn-lead-cx_sm_0928dodgers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091022094650/http://www.newsweek.com:80/id/33142 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/33142

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Walter O'Malley/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comprehensive and well referenced. When I started I knew nothing about him. Now he has an official web site created by his family which provided missing details.

Last edited at 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walter O'Malley. 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/20070312174659/http://www.aatimetable.com/aa.pdf to http://www.aatimetable.com/aa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"090-24-9001" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 090-24-9001. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#090-24-9001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"090249001" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 090249001. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#090249001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)