Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doc Adams/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose 04:14, 26 June 2012 [1].

Doc Adams[edit]

Doc Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Giants2008 (Talk) 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my fellow reviewers. After over four years of editing, I've finally found a topic that I wanted to work on enough to bring here. I think this person is interesting, but I'm a sports nerd so of course I would. Doc Adams is a "lost to history" type of figure from mid-1800s baseball. He was one of the sport's early rulesmakers, and led conventions that resolved several notable issues, including field dimensions. In addition, he's been given credit for coming up with the idea for a new position on the field: shortstop. After his death he was quickly forgotten, at least before researchers discovered more on what he did; now the hard-core baseball historians consider him important. There isn't a ton of information about Adams, but what's out there gave me enough to write a decent-sized article that I think is comprehensive. It has been through a peer review, GA review, and another peer review, improving at each stage. I believe it meets the criteria, and will be around to handle feedback. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at some length at the peer review and continue to regard this as an excellent piece of work. As very much a non-baseballer, had no difficulties with the article and it seems to be as comprehensive as possible on such a subject. Just a couple of queries which do not affect my support. I have performed some light copy-editing on this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it worth mentioning in the lead when he began to be recognised as an important historical figure?
  • "The called strike rule, however, was not applied often in the next few years.": Not sure about "however" here. Maybe "otherwise"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a mention of the 1980 New York Times letter from the legacy section to the lead, and found a newspaper article that discussed how research on him was published in a 1993 book (one of my sources, as it happens). That is now in the lead and legacy section, and I think it helps explain that he was gaining recognition. That's about as good as I can do in providing specific dates.
    • I incorporated the suggested word, and this now reads, "Otherwise, the called strike rule was not applied often in its first few years of existence." A minor wording change toward the end, but the source supports it well enough. Thanks for your help! Giants2008 (Talk) 03:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Would be nice if the images have WP:ALT, unless you see reason not to
  • "He remained the team's president in 1857, and after not being named as a officer " → an officer
  • "an imprecise and varible measure..." spot the spelling mistake -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added alt text to all of the images and fixed the typos, while blushing at the thought of them being there to start with. Thanks for finding them. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotchecks (using random generator)
  • Ref 37, material covered, no plagiarism and factually correct
  • Ref 6, mentions that Adams did graduate from Yale in 1836 but does not include the academic degree he gained; this is backed up in Ref 5 I would imagine. Otherwise no plagiarism, and content covered.
  • Have no access to Ref 31 or 35's book.
  • Ref 43 notes that Adams was considered a big figure in the sport, likewise on the following page.
  • Ref 22, 42, 48, 54 covers material, no plagiarism (the most used book in the article)
  • No issues with ISBN's. I'm guessing the extra full stop in 'Blanchard Printing Co.', and 'Claremont Manufacturing Co.' are forced by the templates? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out that the degree was from a source that dead-linked on me before FAC, which I thought I had replaced everywhere. I added another cite to Husman to verify the degree, as ref 5 was there mainly to cover him transferring.
  • The extra periods are forced by the templates. To get rid of them, I removed the periods from the "Co."s; I also found a couple of other double periods that are now gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and clarity, having conducted my review. A very interesting read. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to everyone here: I'll be going on vacation tomorrow and will be back next Friday. I will have network access while away from home, and will do my best to keep up with whatever is posted here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Supported below glad to see a baseball article up for FA. I don't know a whole lot about the early years of baseball, other than what Ken Burns has told me. FWIW, I found this pretty interesting too, so it isn't just you. Only small comments thus far:
  • For these two: "upon his graduation in 1835 or 1836" & "indicated in a letter penned in 1832 or 1833" I'd suggest using "mid-1830s" or "early 1830s".
  • "the New York Dispensaries." What is that?
  • "whose players were selected by William H. Tucker" What is the significance of naming Tucker here? I'd consider removing it.
  • "winning by scores of 21–11 and 22–20, respectively" I'm not sure you need the "respectively" here.
  • Generally speaking, I think you want to add a comma after they year when using mdy dates, i.e. "July 1, 1900, ..."
  • Also, I think you want two commas in the "city, state, ..." formation too.
  • "Adams had a long playing career with the Knickerbockers; he remained a player with the team until 1859.[29] He did not limit his play to shortstop; he played at every position except pitcher.[6]" Might want to try for some more variation here, I see "playing... player... play... played" within a couple sentences.
  • "Thorn speculates that Adams may have been "the best player of the 1840s" because of his lengthy playing career." I'm confused here, does the evidence of Adams' lengthy career cause Thorn to believe that Adams was the best? Or is it that Thorn believes that the way that Adams became the best was through a long career?
  • "as they would otherwise have had difficulty finding balls to play with." I think you probably can remove "to play with" here. *"In later years Adams gathered rubber from old galoshes for the insides of baseballs. A tanner then used horsehide to create the balls.[8] As late as 1863, he was one of the three most prominent makers of baseballs in New York" Who does the "he" in the second sentence refer to, Adams or the tanner?
  • Do we know why he supported the "fly game" style?
  • "but was forced to abandon it in 1865 due to health issues" His health issues, or health issues among his patients?
  • "In 1871, he accepted a job with the Ridgefield National Bank as president, the first for the company." The first what?
  • "Adams served as a legislator in the Connecticut House of Representatives for the town." Do we know which party he was? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, Mark! I changed the dates to ranges as you suggested. Didn't see anything wrong with having more specific dates, but if you think the ranges are better that's fine.
    • Added a brief explanation.
    • Removed Tucker from that sentence.
    • Removed "respectively" too.
    • I didn't see any more dates with the issue. I think you got them all.
    • Added one comma after a city-state that I found. Not easy to find such details from a laptop!
    • Took out two of the similar words. If you think a third needs to go, let me know and I'll see what I can do with it.
    • The former, which should be more clear now.
    • It refers to Adams, which is now fixed.
    • The source doesn't go into detail about his personal reasons for supporting the fly game. The sentence after the description of the rule is meant to clarify the supporters' rationale. If more is needed, there's a quote in the source about the fly game being more "manly", which I can add if more on the supporters' views in general is desired.
    • His health issues, which I made clearer.
    • First president, which is also fixed.
    • Unfortunately, none of the sources give any further detail on his political career than what is in the article. I wish I knew what party he represented, but if that can't be sourced it can't be added. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, "to play with" is now gone from the ball sentence. Missed that one when I first went through the comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria at this point, good job. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Image check revealed no concerns, all US pre-1923 or government, plus one diagram by an editor.
  • I tweaked the opening sentence, it just reads better to me this way but no strong feeling on it.
  • It may be a cultural thing but I don't get this sentence: "He started at Amherst College for a two-year period" -- how does one "start" for two years; do we simply mean "studied"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't really a cultural thing. I meant that he was starting his college years, but didn't phrase it well. Your suggestion is much better than what was there before, and I went with it. Thanks for the image review and edits; they are appreciated. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No prob, and is there anything stopping us just saying "for two years" rather than "a two-year period"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, let's take that one as read -- now seeing as the nom has its requisite checks and support, I think we can call this a home run... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Doc_Adams/archive1&oldid=1076191302"