Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Barry Bonds/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Barry Bonds

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed at WP:GAC for the third time this year. Although many of the most recent reviewer arguments were for reasons not in keeping with policy (e.g., the reviewer knowledgeable on size policy and thought the article exceeded policy limitation), some arguments were of varying degrees of merit. With respect to size, the article is currently only half the length that is against policy at WP:FAC. Currently, according to this tool, the article is 30.2 KB of readable prose and 5350 words and WP:SIZE says articles much more than 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose is a problem. Generally, much longer than 30 of 50 KB is perceived as over 60KB. So this article could be nearly twice as long and be a WP:FA. It certainly is far short of the length of   Harry S. Truman or either of the Roosevelts for example. In truth, given my experience with WP:GAC, which is about as broad and deep as any on WP, I was quite surprised given the lack of merit of some of the arguments against this article that it was not given a hold at GAC. I am somewhat convince that the common dislike of Bonds may have spilled over into the evaluation of the quality of the article. However, I concede that that as the most active editor of the article, I may be too close to see very deep problems with the article. In short, I need more outside eyes on this article that I think of as very close to WP:WIAGA to help me see points of improvement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bonds' article is shorter than his peer group   Wayne Gretzky and   Michael Jordan.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further details: Jordan - 37.2 KB, 6493 words. Gretzky - 36.4 KB and 6332 words. Bonds which is deeemed too long 30.2 KB and 5350 words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Since I happened to be stopping by PR anyway, I thought I should come here and offer my thoughts.

  • The main issue seems to be the size, so I will start there. I don't have a problem with the total size, but I do believe there is a recentism issue. From 2001-2004, Bonds had some of the greatest numbers in baseball history, but combined they don't get as much ink as his 2006 season, which was really nothing special aside from him passing Babe Ruth. We also don't need a play-by-play of every home run he hit in 2007 leading to #756.
    • I do understand that the weight on 2007 and 2008 is heavier than the best years of his career. I can probably cut some detail out, but since it seems like his article needs to be about 20-25% longer to provide him the same amount of coverage as his peers, it might be necessary to expand other sections more than chop this one. I do get the point though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't Hank Aaron say before #756 that he didn't want Bonds to break his record? I know he congratulated Bonds afterward, and I shouldn't ask for more on his 2007 season, but this might be worth looking into.
  • I noticed an About.com reference, which concerns me since that is typically considered unreliable. Also unsure about Los Altos Hills.com and The Baseball Page.com. Encyclopædia Britannica is weird as well, since we are also an encyclopædia.
  • There are several one-sentence paragraphs. Try to merge or expand them.
  • I noticed a couple statements that could use citations. Reference Bill James ranking Bonds as the best player of the 1990s and the 2005 Sporting News list.
  • Didn't Bonds' agent say that he would play in Japan if nobody signed him? I also remember rumors that Oakland and Tampa Bay were interested in him at various times.

This should be enough to get you started. The article has the potential to be a good article, but still has some rough patches in my opinion. Giants2008 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You want some advice on this piece. I am a petty vandal who stumbled on this page/article, but I am not an idiot and rather knowlegeable when it comes to baseball, you'd do well to listen, and it ain't gonna be easy, here goes. You would do well to stop looking for reasons why others complaints are invalid and just listen to them. You also note the main reason was length, this is disingenious, there were other complaints. However, instead of actually addressing them you fixed the examples and walked away, I would have failed it too.

You say there is little merit in the length based complaint, it is about undue weight, not length, you have as much print about two seasons as you do the previous 10. Also, the 2008 section is out of date, and why does 2008 get its own section? He isn't even playing, doesn't make any sense when you think of it that way.

You throw in the easiest reference? What the hell is that? From the look of your page not only do you like to brag (no one is impressed btw) but this isn't your first attempt at bettering Wikipedia articles, how long does it take someone to learn? It seems to me that the way to improve articles is not to continually nominate the same article over and over again until it shoves it's way through but to actually take some time and try to understand why the article has failed.

Your comments about bias are apt, but it is plainly apparant that your own love for Barry Bonds has colored your ability to approach the process of this article with an objective viewpoint.

I told you that you wouldn't like it, and maybe I was a bit harsh, but I think there are some good pearls amongst the clutter of my thoughts. I just couldn't not comment, considering your astounding, and annoying level of self-importance.208.82.225.232 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit

I'd probably pass it the GA review, but I'd fail it the A-Class and fefinitely the FA review. Some remarks:

  • I am overwhelmed with all these data and figures and figures and figures throughout the text.And this is a problem I often have with sportsmen's biographies. Statistics is not the essence of a biography article. The essence is comprehensiveness, good prose and to tell a nice story.
  • Size is not my problemm (although there are some long sections and a long list "Career Distinctions" - the latter could constitute a separate article-list per WP:SS). My problem is lack of balance as all the reviewers have pointed out. The last three seasons are over-analyzed compared to the previous ones.
  • "Bonds' accomplishments place him among the greatest baseball players of all-time." This is POV IMO, and the comparison with Jordan is not correct, because there we have a cited quote, which is a completely different thing.
  • The article needs a good copy-editing. Choppy prose is throughout the article present.
  • Why do you need such a long "see also" list. Trim it, removing articles already linked within the text.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Barry_Bonds/archive1&oldid=362723926"