| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it up to good article status and want to get constructive feedback on improvements before taking it to be reviewed.
Thanks, Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
- Note that sites such as highbeam.com and newsbank.com are subscription sites and should be noted in References with "subscription required".
- What makes Baseball-Reference.com and www.thebaseballcube.com reliable sources for the information they are cited to? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged.
- Thanks, but they are both reliable sources according to WP:WPBB. If you have a serious problem, I suggest you take it there.
- It is not to me you have to account to, nor am I the judge, jury, and executor of the sources used on this project. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- You suggested that they weren't reliable sources. I just directed you to the area to discuss that if you feel that way. I work with baseball articles all the time and know that both are used frequently because they are reliable. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is one-sided in presenting a biographical look on the subject. A biography should give an overall picture of the man or woman with an emphasis on what he or she is known for. I feel this article has gone overboard in focusing on the player's career (with lots of statistics). Little is given about who the person is, what is his ideals or goals, who he associates with and how he is known among friends or people of other circles. The net result to me is a "baseball player who got busted for steroids" without a sense of his personality, and the mounds of statistics is distracting in a negative sense. I would prefer to know his career in terms of the impact he had on his team and fellow players, and to know less of minute details that are presented in a chronological fashion. It might be well to analyze the player, grouping notable aspects of his career in paragraphs (reorganizing what has been written) rather than scattering them across the page. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that would be very nice, but it would also be original research. It might also slide into WP:POV territory. I have no clue how much of an impact he had on players. There has never been such documentation. I think for a baseball biography article we should stick to what he is notable for, playing baseball. That is what, in my opinion, this article does well. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- You know, the article doesn't do a terrible job of that as it is. It talks about his philanthropy, how he was called a racial slur on the field, comments from his manager in Minnesota, Todd Walker being his good friend, his feelings about his new teams, how Milton Bradley always got mistaken for him, how he got his jewelery stolen in Philadelphia, how he was reunited with his good friend Walker, what Joe Torre thought of him, his personal sorrow for using drugs, and the professional way he handled his release in Seattle. I think "baseball player who got busted for steroids" is a very skimpy way of looking at it. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- And can you clarify what I have been "scattering...across the page". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you are the primary editor of the article, you would be intimately involved with the details. We, however, are readers with little knowledge of the man (unless we are his fans). The statements above backs up my points in my opinion. Where are all those information about the man? Scattered here and there. There is no grouping of common points like what I said. Look to Edward Drinker Cope, Ayumi Hamasaki, and Jada Pinkett Smith for examples of what I believe are better organized articles. They have aspects of the person grouped together for easy reading (paragraph and section-wise). Furthermore, the repetition of statistics in this article about Lawton disconnects the information one from the other. It is not OR or POV to extract and compile information and comments that others have made about the subject; it is OR or POV to introduce our own. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree. I don't see the issue. To bring all comments together would be one path, but it can also be done the way it is. Right now it is in order of seasons with sections of the teams he played with over those seasons. This makes it easy to follow. If I were to break it up into "Career statistics", and "Playing style" it would be difficult for the reader to follow which year matches with the statistics. Right now, I think the organization of the article is both easy to read and up to the standards of WP:WPBB. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you are the primary editor of the article, you would be intimately involved with the details. We, however, are readers with little knowledge of the man (unless we are his fans). The statements above backs up my points in my opinion. Where are all those information about the man? Scattered here and there. There is no grouping of common points like what I said. Look to Edward Drinker Cope, Ayumi Hamasaki, and Jada Pinkett Smith for examples of what I believe are better organized articles. They have aspects of the person grouped together for easy reading (paragraph and section-wise). Furthermore, the repetition of statistics in this article about Lawton disconnects the information one from the other. It is not OR or POV to extract and compile information and comments that others have made about the subject; it is OR or POV to introduce our own. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- And can you clarify what I have been "scattering...across the page". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- To comment on the sourcing above, Baseball-Reference has been proven as reliable many times at GAN and FAC, so no issue there. As for The Baseball Cube, I'm not as sure of; in most cases anything that cube can cite B-R can as well, so that's not a problem. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- If The Baseball Cube is an uncertain source, and if Baseball-Reference is reliable and can be used for any TBC cite, then all references to TBC should be replaced by B-R.