Wikipedia:Peer review/Ty Cobb/archive1

Ty Cobb

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 before I nominate it for featured article status, I would like to see if any other improvements can be made to the article.

Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Move [2][3] to the end of that sentence.
Clear off the [unreliable source?] tags.
"as of 2007," - it's almost midway through 2008 now...
See WP:HEAD for headings, so "The early years" should be "Early years".
Just gut instinct but for an article of this length, I'd say WP:LEAD would recommend a more comprehensive lead.
Instead of continually referring to him as Ty, it should be Cobb as an encyclopaedia would treat it.
"major league at-bat," - a bit too jargon for FA.
Cobb signs.. caption is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
Consider, also, WP:MOS#Images on the size of this image - just thumb should really be used. Check the other images too - portrait images should use upright as well.
"Although rookie hazing was customary," okay, so I'm British but I've got no idea what this means at all.
Year ranges should use en-dash, not hyphens.
"In one notable 1907 game, Cobb reached first, stole second, stole third, and then stole home on consecutive attempts (He did this twice more in his career)" the parenthesised sentence is clumsy, punctuation/syntax incorrect.
"Runs batted in" why capitalise "Runs" mid-sentence?
"At age 20" - perhaps ok in the US, but I'd say At the age of 20 or Aged 20...
"Ty also ended up choking the man's wife when she intervened." needs further explanation - to death?!
1915-1921 section is listprose.
As is the following section, you need to work on fleshing it out, making sure it reads well for engaging prose.
The See also section is incredibly bloated - what directly relates to Cobb which couldn't be linked into the prose in the article?

That's a start, plenty more should you wish. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]