Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Babe Ruth/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:43, 15 May 2007.

Babe Ruth edit

previous fac

This article has significantly improved since it was originally nominated for featured status back in 2005, and I would like to give it a second opportunity. Please provide feedback here and let me know if there are any issues outstanding which need to be addressed in order to see this raised up to FA. Burntsauce 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Notes" section is trivia in disguise and needs to be integrated into the article. There are also uncited patches of info. LuciferMorgan 23:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree with you on the Notes section and have moved it to the talk page for now. The remainder of the article is well sourced in my opinion, but I'd like to fill in any blanks that I might be missing. Which patches are you concerned about in particular? Burntsauce 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Major League Career" section. LuciferMorgan 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Nice article, lots of material, decent citations, decent organization. That being said, it's still a long way from FAC quality.
  • Needs a lot of copyediting.
  • Lead needs to be shortened.
  • One sentence paragraphs destroy the flow of the article.
  • Bulleted list should be written in prose.
  • Prose needs to be tightened in a number of places. (see the ever-useful User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a)
  • Individual years should not be linked.
  • Some sections are entirely lacking in-line citations.

Pascal.Tesson 11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object I like the article, but it needs work to be FA quality. Some comments:
    • The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is weirdly punctuated with ";" having lower precedence than ",". It should be reworked.
    • Too many nicknames in the first paragraph. Surely "The Colossus of Clout" is not a first-class name for Ruth any more. "Babe" and "The Bambino" should do it here, and you can put the rest of the nicknames elsewhere.
    • Some hyphenization-dash issues, e.g., "1914-1935" should be "1914–1935".
    • There are too many details in the lead, and the lead ends up too long. For example, you don't need No, No Nannette in the lead. I'd guess you can shrink the lead by a factor of two.
    • Period missing after "legal guardian".
    • Too many references to other "Babe"s and that part is worded clumsily.
    • Reference should come after "… is disputed" sentence.
    • Don't start a level-2 section right after level-1 (Major League Career / Red Sox years). Similarly for other sections.
    • "Major League Career" is overcapitalized for a level-1 section.
    • Don't put a left-facing image at the start of a section (as per MoS).
    • The "Illness" section is unsourced and has hyperbole like "He contributed as much to the medical field as he did to the playing field" that should be toned down.
    • The "Illness" and "Death" sections both seem overlong to me.
    • The Notes / references section seems relatively weak for an article of this caliber. You should be able to get a lot more references (and useful ones too) by looking at Google News (in the archives section).
    • I notice that the article is a delisted good article. What's the story on that?

Eubulides 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I think the article needs copyedits. The following is the list of changes i would like the author to address:
    1. Reference for his nicknames in the opening sentence
    2. In the lead note, please take his bio in the chronological order, thus his role with Red sox should appear before the Yankees.
    3. Lead para is not the place for yearly accomplishments (1918, 1919)
    4. his election to Baseball hall of fame is mentioned twice in the lead para
    5. the lead para does not mention of his life outside baseball and his death.
    6. the lead para give enough evidence to show that the article might be a candidate for 'FAN POV'.
    7. Early life. How did the mistake of 1894/1895 recognized/corrected?
    8. the content on how he acquired his nick-name "Babe Ruth" needs clean-up. might consider making it a subsection (to deal with naming conventions of the time)
    9."The amount of money exchanged in the transaction is disputed." - what is the amount and is there any info on the same.
    10. With respect to the yankees and decline section, the section focuses too much on stats and provides little insight into these achievemens.
    11. The legacy section needs references.
    I think the article needs cleanup and can be presented as FA candidate after these are addressed. Kalyan 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Along with what everyone else said already, you shouldn't cite wikipedia as a source (citation #17), and the lead is awfully long given its size.--Wizardman 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Babe_Ruth/archive1&oldid=131105691"