Talk:Matt Holliday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Picture[edit]

Found a free picture of him here: Matt Holiday on Flickr. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection?[edit]

People keep reverting his biography back to Colorado but it's confirmed on every sports site he is an Oakland Athletic. We even give references to back it up but it keeps getting reverted.

Thanks.

He and the people going to Colorado have to pass physicals are passed. Mwold (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

--68.83.181.217 (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


1) Every site has 'inside reports' and cannot confirm players going back to Colorado.

2) Neither team has confirmed anything

3) Nothing is official until all players pass physicals.

4) Protecting the page would just top anonymous users like yourself from editing. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually CBS has confirmed that Greg Smith, Carlos Gonzalez and Huston Street are going back to Colorado. But it is not yet official but according to ESPN it'll be official in two days. --Iamawesome800 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
ESPN says "Holliday appears headed to the A's"... "details are being finalized"... "talks are continuing".. etc. In other words, the trade is far from official. I've semi-protected the page for 24 hours to wait out the final trade details. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't speculate on (potential) sport rosters. --Madchester (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Something is missing or misplaced in the Personal section[edit]

It currently reads

He is the son of former Oklahoma State University (and current North Carolina State associate head coach) Tom Holliday ....

It seems highly unlikely that Tom Holliday used to be the entire campus of Oklahoma State University. We're either missing a title, or the close parenthesis needs to be moved to after North Carolina State.

Msramming (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Matt Holliday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: José Galindo (talk · contribs) 06:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Main review[edit]

Overall comments/Misc[edit]

  • Everything is fine here Face-smile.svg I liked pretty much the article. It is complete, neutral, with images and with many references. --José Galindo (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Copyvio rating: 69.1% chance of violation of this page. But I dont find it a violation because only words and short phrases are copied, not entire paragraphs.

Lead[edit]

  • Everything is fine here Face-smile.svg

Background and construction[edit]

  • My only advice is to review frequently the links.

Controversy[edit]

  • I dont find a controversy in the article.

Overall review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: (Pass)

Very nice article, deep, complete and maybe with some minors typos but easily to fix. Congratulations to the persons who contributed in the article.--José Galindo (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Length[edit]

The article currently sits at over 12,000 words and 68kb of prose. For a still active player especially, that tells me that this article is overly detailed and needs condensing. The 2007 season in particular is over 10 paragraphs; that's overkill for anyone. Wizardman 16:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

After seeing Wizardman tag this, I took a quick look at the 2007 section, and saw the phrase "Concluding the season in a flourish". I agree this is overlong and if there's language like that, it's not written in an encyclopedic fashion. Given that bare bones GA review, I think we may need GAR. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So no change on this issue I see. GAR? Perhaps. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Way too long. He's not Babe Ruth.