Talk:Barry Bonds/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Staxringold talkcontribs 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Let me start by saying good on you for undertaking such a massive target. An article which is, simultaneously, on a major record breaker, one of the most historically important figures in a field, one of the most controversial figures in that field, and a BLP all in one.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    On 1a I would suggest as others have in other reviews that the prose be looked over with a fine-toothed comb. Particularly in an article on a topic as edgy as this I'd be especially careful of weasel words in a sentence like "Some do not expect Bonds to get prison time after". Why not simply be clear and say "Writers with the NYT do not expect Bonds to get prison time after" On 1B it's more a question of general layout:
    Is it O.K. to say "Some writers"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better, but still weasel word-ish. Particularly to use the indefinite "some writers" when referring to a specific source. If this was a view of several different writers then "some" might make more sense. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could his general big chunk of Giants career be broken apart a bit? The current giant block of text can be difficult to navigate. I'm looking at Mariano Rivera as an example of a brilliantly laid out baseball biography. Why not start with 93-00, 01-07? Basically even chunks that break nicely at his record breaking 01 and such.
  • The standalone "Bonds on Bonds" section strikes me as very awkward. Perhaps fold into controversies, given how it died?
  • Again I would look to Mariano Rivera on how to format the career records section. A table would make it far more readable and accessable.
    • I know you can demand a table, but for a GA, the content is presentable, IMO. At FAC, I would understand the need to reformat it, but I question the necessity of it at GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoopsies, right you are, not a part of GA criteria. Would be nice, but not a demand. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 01:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another prose note, the section on what to do with ball #756 is unclear currently it just notes Ecko set up a site to determine what to do and then a quote by Bonds that he's angry with what Ecko's doing. Should probably include the result of Ecko's poll there. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dominated the NL" under Pirates career seems a bit POV.
  • The current sourcing (#20) doesn't actually explain the prose currently in the article about Bonds changing his number. The article alleges (in a sentence with no source) that Bonds switched to honor his father, but the source provided actually suggests he originally actually wanted Mays # and switched after an angry fan response. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Resolved reference issues
#::My only 2c question at present is if you could include at least one more source in the lead towards the "among the greatest" statement. I personally agree, and am sure it wouldn't be hard to find the source, but a statement like that in a lead probably merits a second source. As for formatting consistency, some examples:
  1. Added one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6 (the main B-Ref Bonds stats page), eg, uses a different format for crediting Sports Reference. All B-Ref pages should list "Sports Reference, LLC"
    Fixed that and made all B-Rs linkable in the refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very first reference doesn't cite ESPN properly or in line with other ESPN references (116, 117, eg). The general format for ESPN I've seen is |work=[[ESPN.com]]|publisher=ESPN Internet Ventures
  • What makes "jockbio" (#7) a reliable source?
  • Sources from the general MLB.com need to list MLB.com under work.
  • The refs are a nightmare. So many different people were editing this article and so many new links exist now that did not in 2007 when this was being heavily edited. So far this is what I have fixed. There are probably more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "Sports Collectors Daily" (archived in #100) a reliable source? It looks like a blog.
    • It has an editor and thus an editorial review process as opposed to a wiki free for all. See this. I have added a SF Chronicle article as well though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does having an editor raise something to the level of RS? Again, no statement of expertise from any of the editor or contributing writers. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see how having someone with unknown credentials whom you call an editor improves the status of a source. I could found a website tommorrow, title myself an editor, that doesn't make it a reliable source. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite news has agency, if you use cite web I generally list them under publisher. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the above, the Yahoo refs need a consistent format (compare those two to #109 to 111)
  • Hence why AP-based information hosted on Yahoo needs to be noted clearly as opposed to simply with a backslash. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is now Ref #107 is "Yahoo!" while the others are all "Yahoo! Inc."
  • Based on what? The staff application form asks for your name and email address. That's it. And it's blatently, immediately stated as being self-published. And it's a blog. And why use that when sources like this or this covering similar material from RSes is available? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the level of review affect the reliability of the source? If TBC is quoted in major publications or supported by a major organization that's one thing, but I see nothing. Cohen doesn't even identify any baseball expertise (work in baseball, published books on the subject, etc) to get at RS like Sasata does with some of his mushroom sites written by PhDs. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, an WP:RS is something that passes muster with a professional editor. He may be an editor at Time or a free local newspaper such as the Chicago Reader. Pretty much anything a professional editor lets go to print is considered an WP:RS. Wikis and blogs are another animal where anyone can say anything and no one who is an expert has to approve it. Certain blogs by people who are experts are O.K. Especially now since a lot of respected periodicals allow their writers to blog without editorial review. We presume these professional and experts review their own work and are as critical as an editor and give it nearly the same weight as an RS. A blog by me about something for which I am not an authority is not an RS. However, if I regularly start producing content that serious editors accept as fact for inclusion in their work, it is as if they are approved by the same editorial process that RSs are approved by. I.E., if a writers work that passes through review is considered an RS, that portion of the content submitted by a source such as baseball cube that these same editors approve for publication is sort of a defacto RS. If ESPN articles or Fox Sports or Sports Illustrated cites the cube, it becomes a RS because their editors allow it to go to press.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I did Tyrone Wheatley, I had to replace all the replaceable Pro-football-reference.com citations that I could. However, when push came to shove on a list of his 100-yard games, they were the only source and that was an important enough fact to retain PFR. These types of sources are a lower level of reliability than editorial RSs or stuff like NFL.com, MLB.com, and NBA.com. In a pinch they can be accepted. It all depends.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • All I would say is maybe move the perjury charge section up directly below the BALCO section. As it is it looks thin, but directly below it would be clearer that the info there flows into the indictments.
  • Was going to bring up Wizard's point under prose, but I guess it really belongs here. His Pirates career section needs a major overhaul. As it stands his first four years is covered in a handful of sentences and the 06 and 07 season are each as large as his first 14 years in the majors. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are arguing is basically that large portions of the article are at maximum FA level of detail and other parts are at minimum GA level of detail and it looks bad, IMO. Yes parts of the article have high level of detail and this level is not uniform, but the less detailed levels still adequately cover the material, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could argue that for the early Giants section, maybe. But the Pirates career section is far too short, even for GA status. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a few articles to add context to the statistics. I am not sure if much else is really missing in terms of telling the Bonds story. Let me know if you still want more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was their really nothing else notable from his career with the Pirates, particularly early on? His first 4 years (86, 87, 88, 89) currently get as much prose total as home runs 736-740 which broke no record or anything. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attendance stuff looks good, it paints a solid picture of a young superstar's impact on a down franchise. Could you add the trade rumor to the Dodgers mentioned here and here? Barry Bonds for Jeff Hamilton and John Wetteland. Hah. Imagine how different the baseball world would've looked with Bonds on the Dodgers (potentially longterm) rather than walking to the Giants. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last prose note I was reminded of in digging up the above sources. Could you mention the impact of Andy Van Slyke on moving Bonds to left (as opposed to center, his original position)? The longer of the 2 sources above touches on this, as does this article (might be useful for other things, also). Also, 10 seconds of Google News archive searching found some stories on a generally contentious relationship between Bonds and Van Slyke, may be worth including. (A USA Today story available on Lexis Nexis, for example, titled "Bonds, Van Slyke agree that relationship is fine"). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • O.K. I added the bit about them not being close and the position move. I also stumbled upon something about him batting leadoff in 86 and 87.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Yep, and this one isn't easy. Be careful to be broad in coverage here if you add/expand into a Legacy section like Mariano has.
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Will always be troublesome with a topic like this.
  3. 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):
    aye
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Lets get it started in here! Staxringold talkcontribs 01:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add a comment, the recentism on this article concerns me as well. The 2006 or 2007 season sections are larger than the entire Pirates career. You wouldn't think that he won two MVPs for that team on a skim of the article. I'm sure Stax would've pointed this out later on in the review, just noting it now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good, passing it. I would seriously consider reorganizing the career distinctions section, probably into a table. It's quite messy right now! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barry_Bonds/GA1&oldid=384843972"