Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive3

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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:32, 21 July 2009 [1].

Jackie Robinson

[edit]
Nominator(s): BillTunell (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because...

I nominated this article a little more than a month ago for FA status, which discussion is archived here. My comments for that nomination still apply, with the update that the project has now grown to a 1000+ edit process, adding about 100 original references, including ten new books.

The main snag during the last nomination was the inclusion of five non-free images. I've adressed three of these images, in the following way:

  • I've removed two prior images of Robinson in military and UCLA uniforms, and replced these with free equivalents (although I had to purchase electonic files from the Library of Congress to be able to upload adequate copies to wikipedia), and
  • I've removed a prior image of Robinson's signing a contract with Branch Rickey, for several reasons. First is that it is non-free. But it also is described by some sources as dated to 1948 rather than 1945, and various other sources have lead me to doubt the authenticity of any image purporting to portray the origial 1945 signing. The prior image is also still available at the Racial integration in baseball section of the baseball history article.

As a result, there are now only two non-free images in the article:

Both of these were discussed extensively in the last nomination. I am hoping that even if there is continuing disagreement about their inclusion, that discussion this time around can be streamlined. For the record, I consider Robinson and Satchel Paige to qualify under criterion #8 of the policy on non-free-content as a historically significant image. I've researched any other potential avenues for a free image that depict Robinson's Negro League days and can find none. Robinson's Negro Legaue days, IMO, would be worthy of its own article were it not duplicative of the content here, and so one illustration of the topic is, IMO, justified. The specific image was also chosen as an image that represents Satchel Paige as well as Robinson, which is designed to minimize non-free use by allowing for the image use in the Paige article as well. The photo also shows the relative height of Robinson and Paige, which otherwise gives information on Robinson's physical stature which I cannot find described in such detail by any narrative source.

On the other side of the issue, a couple commentators in the prior nomination disputed either the "significance" of the Negro League photo under the non-free content criteria, or the adequacy of the typewritten rationale in the image's upload history page. I've included all information I know abot the photograph in the description page. Substantively, I think there is a good faith argument given the way the non-free content criteria read, but adminstrators have not ruled on this issue because of the length of the last nomination discussion. I'm re-submitting the FAC nomination in hopes we can get resolution on the issue one way or the other. IMO the Negro League photo is the only issue likely to generate meaningful FA-status oppostition for this article.

As for the Robinson Memorial photo, the Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use sub-criterion No. 8 (specific to "Images") indicates that depiction of a public statue is allowable in connection with a discussion of the statue itself, separate from the discussion of its subject. Given the treatment within the article's "Awards and recognition" section of the statue itself, I think inclusion of the image is appropriate. But again, if there are any oppositions on this basis, I'm hoping adminstrators will be willing to rule on the issue one way or the other.

Non-image-related editorial issues should be well taken care of at this point. Some discussion of stylistic differences remain from the last nomination, but I know of no substantive changes that haven't been made. Several editors have done a lot of proofreading and copyediting changes, there's been a thorough plagiarism review, etc.. Thanks once again to all those who have looked at the article. Let me know if there is anything left to do.

BillTunell (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from TonyTheTiger
  • The article retains "Robinson's contract was for $400 a month ($58,250 a year in current dollars)..." - This continues (see complaint in prior FAC) to be a point of confusion where you present a 1945 monthly salary and convert it to a yearly current salary. Baseball monthly contracts usually can not be multiplied by 12 so there is all kinds of confusion. Please just convert to the current monthly salary amount.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change, although I still think that it leads to confusion when compared to the other current-dollar reference in the article. Personally I'd prefer to drop the current-dollar templates altogether. BillTunell (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the international reader, who may not be able to conceptualize three generations worth of inflation for the U.S. Dollar, this is helpful. I don't think there is much question it should stay. The reader knows what $5k a month is today, but may not know what $400/month was in 1945.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'd mentioned in the earlier FAC review, your suggested entries relate to a book by Golenbock that I do not have, and are not in my local libraries. I do not feel comfortable citing sources I cannot verify. Again, if you (or someone else with access to the book) want to make the changes, I have no objection. BillTunell (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have inserted two references to the Stout book (which is partially web-accessible) on this issue at the end of the "1948-1950" subsection. BillTunell (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I've done a copy edit of the article. Please check my edits to ensure that nothing was changed incorrectly.
Thanks. I've changed the article in accordance with your suggestions below unless noted otherwise. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third sentence of the lede is somewhat long. I suggest breaking it into two sentences.
I you're referring to the sentence beginning "This eneded a nearly 60-year erea . . . ", then I'm not sure how to do this without ending up with a sentence fragment. I'm also loathe to change the lead at this point because it's been the subject of intense negotiation during the other FAC and peer review phases. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were Robinson's junior high and high schools segregated?
I don't know -- I'll see if I can confirm. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, says Rampersad on p. 37: "In all of Jack's schools, most of his teammates were white, just as all the student bodies were predominantly white." Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were his junior high and high school athletics competitions segregated? There's a mention of a Pacific Coast Negro Tennis Tournament, so I'm assuming yes, but I'd like to make sure, especially since UCLA wasn't segregated.
As with the above, I don't know. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his teammates were white, and competitions in football, baseball, and basketball are explicitly team efforts, so I feel confident in concluding that at least the bulk of his teenage athletic competitions were not segregated. It is not clear whether the tennis tournament was even school-affiliated (a tournament on the 6th of September is somewhat incongruous with the typical school year), nor is it clear whether Robinson was even a member of his school's tennis team ("Jack played tennis only sporadically", Rampersad, p. 37). Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the sentence about his fractured ankle belongs in the early life area. The effects of it don't show up until the military career section, so I'd suggest moving the first reference down there. Otherwise, a reader is introduced to his military career before you're ready to explain it in the article, and it might prompt interest (as it did for me), distracting from the early life section.
This was another subject of earlier comments and edits. Without explaining why the ankle injury later became significant, it reads as a non-sequitor. Accordingly, I've left it alone for now. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first reference to UCLA needs to be spelled out. Right now, it's spelled out in the second instance.
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the Order of the Mast and Dagger?
Don't know. I'll check the Rampersad book later, but it will require another library trip. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rampersad describes this as a "significant honor: induction into the junior college's most respected honor society...each semester, Mast and Dagger tapped a few students who had performed "outstanding service to the school and whose scholastic and citizenship record is worthy of recognition."" (Rampersad, p. 56–60; "outstanding service" quote is cited to the 1939 Pasadena Junior College Yearbook). Ten students were inducted that year; the Pasadena Post ran the story on the front page, with a group photo. Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a mention of "only season" in his UCLA baseball career ... did he only play in college for one year, even though he attended for almost four?
He was at UCLA for a little under two years, and although I suppose he could have played a second season of baseball if he had wanted to, I don't find an explanation in the sources. As such, I wouldn't want to speculate. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He attended UCLA from fall 1939 through early March 1941. When he enrolled, he announced his intention to compete in "football and the broad jump only" (Rampersad, p. 63). In 1939 he competed in football only; in 1940 he competed in football, basketball, track, and baseball; in 1941 he competed in basketball only (UCLA Robinson bio). Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if user:JKBrooks85 was just fact checking or wants an explanation of why Robinson played only one year of baseball. I'm not sure any explanation would help the article, so I have not inserted one yet. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that Isum was "familiar with Robinson as an athlete from PJC". That sentence isn't clear to me ... was she just familiar with his success, or did she attend PJC and know him from his success at the school?
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the final sentence of the military career section, it's a bit unclear to whom "who" refers: is it the Kansas City Monarchs or the ex-player?
The ex-player. I consdiered changing this but all the alternatives seemed too wordy and distracting. The use of "who" as opposed to "whom" or "which" should make the reference clear. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now further clarified by the next sentence. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The post-military section includes a sentence about Robinson being offered the position of athletic director ... I'd suggest making it more active by saying he accepted it. It's inferred, but never actually stated.
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Robinson follow up on the suggestion that he write the Monarchs and ask for a tryout?
I think so, although I can't find confirmation of a letter or a tryout in the source material, so I don't want to speculate. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; from Rampersad, p. 113: "On Alexander's advice, Robinson sent a letter of inquiry to Thomas Y. Baird, who owned the Monarchs along with their founder, J. L. Wilkinson. Answering promptly, Baird offered Jack $300 a month—if he made the team." Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest switching a sentence in the Monarchs section so that he actually accepts the contract, rather than just being offered it. Again, it's inferred but not stated outright that he does accept.
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that "during this period, Branch Rickey" ... what period does that refer to: 1945 or something else?
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "current" dollars twice: Is that 2009, 2008, or something else? Put the year so that when the article ages, we have an absolute comparison, regardless of future inflation. Unless, of course, it's some automatically adjusting template.
It is an automatic template. I don't really like it, either, but it was inserted at the suggestion of user:TonyTheTiger -- see above. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three different dates are listed for the last player to break the color line before Robinson: "the 1880s", "at least 1890", and 1887. I'd suggest picking one and sticking with it.
changed to "the 1880s." BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Robinson receive the gash in his leg?
It was in a game againt the St. Louis Cardinals. I've sourced the claim rather than go into a lot of detail, which IMO isn't really that germane, and possibly would cast unproven aspersions on the culprit, Enos Slaughter. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1948 to 1950 subsection references "pressure"; what does this refer to?
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1949 season paragraph, I'd suggest moving the sentence about him raising his batting average after the sentence where he "explodes". You'll have to remove one of the references to a .342 batting average to avoid being repetitive.
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did Robinson say at the HUAC hearing, and what effect, if any, did it have?
This is all dealt with at the "further" link. A detail of the episode is pretty tangential to the Robinson article, so I previously swtiched the discussion to the Paul Robeson article. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph explaining the 1950 season, you mention that a biographical film "was planned ... delayed ... was released in 1950"; how much could it have been delayed if it was released in the same year it was planned?
Don't know whether it was "delayed" in 1950, so I've reworded. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1952 season summary includes the word "finish" twice; I'd suggest rewording that.
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clause "one of the most difficult feats in baseball" appears to be referring to Robinson's 19 steals of home plate, rather than stealing home plate itself. I'd suggest rewording that sentence.
changed. I've just deleted the whole "most difficult feats" claim because it's subjective. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Leo Durocher?
Robinson's former manager. That's explained in the first instance, and he's linked in the two instances he appears. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it his son's death or the experience of guiding his son through treatment that "turned Robinson Sr. into an avid anti-drug crusader"?
I'll have to source a reference for the statement to eliminate any confusion. I don't find any decent reference offhand, but I'll include this in my follow-up book source search. The quick answer is both. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It began before his son's death, with the family's experience of coping with Jackie Jr.'s addiction. From Rampersad, p. 438: "Earlier in the year [1970] Robinson had spoken publicly about his experience as the father of an addict to a meeting called by the group Ministers Against Narcotics at the HOliday Inn at LaGuardia Airport, attended by Governor Rockefeller and other high-ranking officials. He said that his decision to "stick by my son" had been "tremendously rewarding." That month, on a Harlem street corner, he also addressed some two hundred people at an antidrug block party on the subject of the epidemic sweeping the city." Note also that in 1971 Jackie Jr. "testified frankly and in detail about his drug experience before Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut's Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency in the United States" (Rampersad, p. 443). Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikilink for Rachel Robinson should be moved far forward.
She's linked in each instacne she appears. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robinson would be inducted into the California hall of fame" ... was he?
changed. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. I know it's a lot of stuff, but they're mostly minor fixes. It's a complete, well-cited article, and it appears to cover all aspects of his life, which is a really good thing in my eyes. Usually, the biography articles I see at FAC don't include much if anything about the early aspects of the subject's life. This article doesn't fall into that trap. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Good work so far, and good work getting the article to featured status. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. BillTunell (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have Rampersad and several other relevant books at hand; will endeavor to address some of the unresolved queries above. Maralia (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies interspersed above. Have not made an effort to incorporate any of this clarified/additional information into the article; Bill, let me know if you want me to do so. Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maralia, you saved me a trip. I've updated the article with the relevant citations. Anything else you feel would be warranted, JK?. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You've answered the questions I had and addressed my concerns. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — My concerns and questions have been addressed and answered. As best as I can tell, the article gives a complete and clear overview of Jackie Robinson's life. I can't vouch that it's perfect in every respect, but from my point of view, it is a superior article that deserves to be featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments 7-5-09 – I opposed over the fair-use images last time, but am content to let others debate them here. I never got to review the prose last time, so that's what I want to focus on.

  • Facts don't need to be cited in the lead if they are in the body, as they should be. This is not mandatory by any means, but consider removing cites from basic facts from the body that are backed up later.
I've eliminated about half the lede references and re-inserted any unique citations in the body of the article. I've left those citations which might be controverisal (e.g., "precursor to the Civil Rights Movement") and some cumulative citations that are used differently in the article (usually citing stats year-by-year).
  • "he helped establish the Freedom National Bank, an African-American-owned and -controlled entity based in Harlem, New York." Remove space after "and"?
changed. Some may object; the lede was heavily edited in the first FAC stage. The hyphen is meant, I beleive, to emphasize the notion of being "African-American-controlled"; but I've re-worded to avoid confusion.
  • "In recognition of his on- and off-field achievements". Why is there a space after the hyphen? Am I just not reading this properly? (wouldn't be the first time)
changed. Same as above.
  • While reading, I've noticed that only certain photos have alt text, a new feature that is not widely used in candidates. The ones that use alt text have great details, which leave me wondering if the rest of the images could be treated the same way. There would likely be no fair-use ramifications, if that is a concern.
inserted alt text for each picture
  • Military career: "despite the fact that Robinson neither drank nor smoked." The structure is somewhat awkward; as a replacement, I recommend "even though Robinson neither drank nor smoked."
changed
  • Post-military: Southwestern Athletic Conference could be linked.
changed
  • Negro Leagues: Cite would be useful for Boston being the last team to integrate. I've seen that fact numerous times before, so it shouldn't be hard to find something that covers it.
inserted
  • Minor leagues: Overlinking is usually advised against at FAC. Here, the International League and the Montreal Royals were already linked in the last section, leaving no real need for more links in this section.
changed
  • Major leagues: Remove apostrophe in 1880's.
changed
  • commemorates this event ny representing Reese with his arm around Robinson." There's a typo in the middle of this sentence.
edited. BillTunell (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read thus far, this is an admirable effort on the prose side. I only made it about halfway through, but that's fairly common in long articles. On the negative side, there are still some references of questionable reliability, and others lack publishers or access dates. I hope this receives a thorough source check, because a figure like Jackie Robinson deserves nothing but the best. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me know if you have anything further -- especially any cites you consider unreliable. I only found two web sources without access dates (now re-checked and access dates inserted as of today). BillTunell (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – 1c. I finally got some time to go over the references, and the problems were worse than I thought. What concerns me most is the use of numerous questionable sources. I compiled a list below, which shows that much work is needed. Some formatting suggestions are included as well.
Thanks. See my comments/changes below. In general, it appears you are looking at sources individually without reference to whether they are being used as duplicate sources for the substantive claim in the article. In the last FAC nomination there was a whole stage at which I double-sourced to dubious-reference claims. A few claims were removed completely as not being verifiable. In general, when a claim can be double-sourced I have not removed the remaining less-authoritative citations provided they have some residual value (often for pictures not otherwise includable in the wiki article). Where there was no residual value (such as with parallel wikis and the like) but the claim was verifiable, the original link was removed in favor of new citations.
In a couple other places, I think you're concentrating on the web host site address rather than on the author, which should be the real focus of reliability concerns.
But you make a number of valid points below. Note that most reference numbers have now changed. Let me know your thoughts. BillTunell (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher now listed as "WorldandI Online." The substance of the claim involved is that Robinson's career "was a a significant precursor to the subsequent Civil Rights Movement." The source is Ira Glasser, who was a fifty-year career advocate on civil rights issues and the former head of the ACLU. I don't know who else you could sponsor that would be more qualified to to make the claim at issue. Given the fact that the sourced claim is attributed to an individual author, I don't really consider "worldani.com" as the source of the claim, just the webhost of the article in question. But if the bona fides of the publication are at issue, it is apparent from the main site of "WorldandI" that it is a quarterly publication in print since 1986. I wasn't familiar with the pulication before edting this article, but I don't know that that makes it unreliable. Its other accesible articles seem well-researched.
As an additional citation I've inserted the Baseball Hall of Fame article that had previously been in the External Links section.
As a printed publication, it should be fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseball Almanac (reference 6 and others) hasn't been found to be reliable yet. If Baseball-Reference has All-Star voting totals, consider using them as replacements.
I don't see any other voting totals, but I've inserted the baseball-reference.com page for Robinson, which includes All-Star appearance information. Is it the baseball wikiproject that disapproves of Baseball Almanac? Any informational links would be appreciated.
I've seen it questioned at many FACs and FLCs, and no one has yet been able to prove that it is a reliable source. I'll have to look in the FAC archives for an example. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robinson's official site (reference 13) is a primary source, a type of source that should be rationed carefully. The facts in this reference aren't controversial, so this one should be okay. Might be good to check other cites from this website, though.
This was the subject of review in the last FAC nomination. The offical site, as well as any other family-based source information, are only used as backup sources for any potentially controversial claim. Note 13 is an example, in that the primary source for the claim is the Rampersad book (note 12). I have not removed any first-party source material just for the sake of removing it, since they add some context.
  • Reference 26 (YANK Magazine) links to a Wikimedia Commons page. I'm not sure whether we should be linking to a fellow wiki; consider making it an offline citation.
I don't know what you mean by "offline citation." Are you saying that I should delete the url tag? Honestly I don't see the value in that. The citation is not to wikimedia; it is to the magazine article, a copy of which just happens to be hosted on a wikimedia site.
  • Brittanica (ref 38) is relaible, but there are surely better sources avaliable than other encyclopedias.
This was a tough one, but I found an academic article to cite in addition to the britannica article. It's not web-free, but you can buy for $1.99.
There's some excess formatting in that citation. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fixed
  • Reference 46 needs a publisher. So does 48. And 76 (NPR can be moved from author to publisher), 77, 105, 141, 197, 198, 212, 214, 216, and 220. Some of these give the publisher as part of the link, when it should be made a seperate part of the cite.
I've inserted publisher information for all these with two exceptions: note 48 (now 49) and note 141 (now 145). Both of these are Library of Congress archives, which by their nature do not have "publishers," so I'm not sure what to put there, or if it's necessary.
I'm guessing that the Library of Congress should be the publisher since it's their website. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About.com (ref 85) is almost never considered reliable.
Again, this is another example of a claim with multiple citations, the about.com cite being only one. But I've added a cite to the Lamb book for further confirmation. The about.com cite is mostly derrivative of other sources, but it does contain some images not otherwise publishable in the wikipedia article, so I've kept in the reference.
Update: I've gone ahead and deleted the about.com reference. The claim has three other citations, and the about.com article's only incremental worth was a gallery of two public-domain pictures. BillTunell (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.mrbaseball.com/ a reliable source? Note that if this is John Thorn's personal website, there's a decent chance he would meet WP:SPS as an expert on the subject.
As with the Glasser article, the source is the author, the webhost site of the article being incidental. John Thorn (and Jules Tygiel, as co-author of the article in question) are established baseball historians and biographers of Robinson, respectively.
  • Why is a Robert Edwards Auctions page (ref 98) used to cite a cancelled game? Aren't better sources possible?
Again, an example of a multi-sourced claim. The primary citation is the Lamb book. I've kept the auction citation as a supplemental reference mainly because of its incidental content (pictures, plus interest for anyone that likes to bid on memorabilia)
Update: I've deleted Robert Edwards Auctions as a reference, since its claims are derrivative of the Lamb book, and the site itself is primarily commercial rather than informational.
This is a holdover from before I got invovled in the article. From my review the SportMag.us biography is actually pretty good, although it is not credentialed in any real way. I'd previously double-sourced any potentially controversial claims relating to the article in the last FAC nomination. As of today, I've double-sourced two remaining claims: the Montreal fan base's enthusiasm for Robinson (double-sourced to the Linge book) and the statistic about Robinson's career stolenbases/slugging percentage (double-sourced to San Francisco Chronicle article).
The blog entry is cited for Robinson's pro basketball career with the Los Angeles Red Devils. I've double- (and triple-) sourced to pages from the Rampersad and Tygiel books to substantiate Robinson's career with the Red Devils. I've kept the blog reference, though, since it has some interesting and unique material including venue pictures, old tickets/programs from the Red Devils, etc.. Substantively, the blog-creator/article-author, Claude Johnson, seems to have decent bona fides. His bio is here -- educated Carnegie Mellon and Stanford, a member of several professional research organizations, etc..
  • A Flickr photo (ref 121) isn't what I would call a good source.
I've kept the picture link but included an additional New York Times cite to substantiate the information about the statue.
I agree on this one -- this is the "I thought it would take another war" quote. I've tried and failed to find a copy of the October 1948 issue of SPORT magazine that the blog references for the quote. I've been hoping someone could confirm. The only independent confirmation I can find is a USAToday blurb here, but this itself is based on another blog, which in turn is based on wikipedia.
Update: I've deleted the Carter Brothers Blog reference and added the SportMag.us bio page as a reference for this quote (which appears to be where the blog got the quote to begin with). The SportMag.us bio page still has questionable reliabilty, so this does not necessarily resolve the ultimate issue. But the citation as it exists now is an improvement, in that the cited source is now from the archive website of the publication that the quote is allegedly from. I've separately e-mailed SportMag to see if they can sell me a copy of the article with the quote in question (which judging from their website seems to be something they do on special request). I'll let you know if I can directly confirm the quote that way. BillTunell (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm not getting any response from SportMag.us, so I'm just removing the "I thought it would take another war" quote from the article. If I can get real confirmation on the quote I'll add it back in at a later time. BillTunell (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 134 and 195 need en dashes for the page ranges, though that's not my primary concern now.
None of the footnote page numbers use en-dashes, so I haven't changed this. Is there a WP:MOS provision I'm missing? If so, I'll change all.
Update: just saw WP:DASH, so I've inserted en-dashes in all pp. references instead of hyphens. It would be appreciated if someone could please shoot whomever came up with that policy. BillTunell (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a double-source issue. Since the second citation was in combination with the SportMag.us biography, I've triple-sourced.
Update: I've removed the two reference notes to this site in the body of the article (the substance of both claims was statistical, not within the baileywick of the courageouscharacter site), but kept the site in the External Links section (again, for reference to picture galleries). BillTunell (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it isn't, but I've double-sourced the claims to baseball-reference.com
  • Ref 191 (TIME 100) should have all caps in TIME removed.
I don't think this is correct. All the sources I see use the title of TIME in allcaps. This is true on the website showing the "TIME 100" list, as well as the masthead in the current print magazines. Accordingly I've changed all lower-caps references to "Time" to allcaps "TIME" instead. If there's a MOS provision on this, let me know.
  • Wordpress (ref 201) is also low on the reliability scale.
Another double-source issue. This specific citation is there mostly for the pictures.
With so many great books in the references, why would low-quality sources be used? We should be striving to use the best possible sources, and the numerous blogs and similar only bring the article down. No matter how well-written I think it is, it doesn't matter if the works it is based on are unreliable. I won't be avaliable to check for responses until at least Monday, so you should have time to work on these. Please do, because I feel strongly that the article not be promoted unless these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Let me know what you think of the comments/changes. The upshot of all the above commentary is that, with one exception, each referenced claim in the article is supported by at least one source that you have not questioned on reliabitly grounds. All questionable sources, within the context of the article, are used as backups. BillTunell (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some strikes and comments above. Forgive me for asking, but why are you so adamant about retaining references that have pictures? The external links section includes numerous photo galleries for those who are interested. In fact, I think a few links could easily be removed from there without doing any damage. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not so much to keep pictures, as it is to look for any potential reason that someone might have originally referenced the material before we make the determination to delete it. Each of the changes you suggest eliminates information that others put in the article (none of the references we're talling about were inserted by me). So I just want to be conservative in eliminating other people's work.
That being said, I think most of your proposed deletions are defensible, and I have made some more recent changes (see above for updates). What I believe remains of our discussion is the following (tell me if I'm missing something), with my current reasons for keeping the material cited. When judging backup citation material (which is almost all of what we're talking about) my general attitude is that deletion almost never helps improve the article, unless there is some defect in the backup citation itself.
  • SportMag.us biography While this is not bylined to an author, I don’t see any substantive errors in the biography. In fact, I consider it the best internet biography not derived from wikipedia, and the only such one that concentrates much on non-baseball or social issues. It does not appear to derived from any other internet source, nor does its content appear replicable by any easy subset of other links. As such I think it has a unique reliable perspective that at least justifies its existence as a secondary citation. That being said, I’ve eliminated a few of the propositions within the article that cites to the SportMag.us biography (namely the Bill James reference and the Minnie Minoso reference) which are clearly based on a separate third-party source for which the SportMag.us citation would be simply derivative.
  • BlackFivesBlog This is well-researched and written by blog standards. Unique content, not just in pictures, but contemporary newspaper quotes, player quotes, dates of Robinson’s tenure with the Red Devils, offer from the Harlem Globetrotters, etc.. This is the kind of informational content that none of the books provide.
  • Flickr pic of statue of Reese and Robinson The fact that this is a flickr site does not make it unreliable for purposes of depicting the statue via a photograph. This happens to be the best photo of the statue I find (there are others on mlb.com and brooklynpaper.com, for example, but of lower quality or cropped). For purposes of confirming the artist, date, medium, etc., the flickr site is just a backup to the NYTimes article that immediately precedes it.
  • baseballhistorian.com (1950) and baseball historian.com (1951) These cites have unique commentary and stats regarding not only Robinson but the 1950 Dodgers, and the other leading position fielders of 1951. I think that’s useful for putting Robinson’s best two fielding seasons in perspective, while not having to delve into commentary about other players in the article itself.
  • publicheart.wordpress.com This is similar to the Flickr reference in that the footnote is only there because it has the best pictures availabel of the statue at issue, and the substatnive information about the statue is verifed by other footnotes. I’d like to keep the publicheart.wordpress.com reference because the other, fair-use-claim photograph of the memorial statue in Pasadena is being challenged in this FAC. If the article image is removed then the publicheart.wordpress.com images become especially important. If not, I don’t really care.
  • The Baseball Almanac citations. These are primary rather than backup citations for two issues: (i) All-Star Game Voting results, (ii) stats form the 1945 Negro League All-Star game. I can't find anything that directly confrims this information, although various sources cite Robinsons's appearance in the Negro League All-Star game, and MLB.com at least confirms the year-to-year All-Star lineups. So this information should be credible from what I can tell, and I cant' find good replacement information. BillTunell (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The External Links section, whcih is now substantially reworked. I've found a treatment at WP:External Links and as a result, eliminated the auction site, the Bettman and Getty image search pages, and a secondary link to the Baseball Hall of Fame site (which I've nevertheless inserted as a backup reference to the "precursor to the civil rights movement" claim above). I've also elevated the two "official" webistes to first on the list, and alphabatized the rest. BillTunell (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Done, and good work! Thanks. Alt text needs to be rewritten to conform to WP:ALT. For example, for File:Jackie_robinson_ucla_track.jpg the alt text is (my italics) "In 1940, Robinson (pictured here in his track uniform) became the first athlete at UCLA to letter in the same year in four sports: baseball, football, basketball and track". But almost none of that text describes the visual appearance of the image. Only the part that I've italicized should be in the alt text; the rest should be omitted (and the alt text rewritten to focus on just what a naive reader can immediately verify by viewing the image). Generally speaking, proper names should not be in the alt text, as a typical reader won't know what these old-time players looked like. See WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, particularly the 3rd example. I tried to get the ball rolling on this by writing what I hope is good alt text for the lead image. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was not aware of this standard. All alt text has been changed, and some captions revised as a result. BillTunell (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this comment. Can you please explain? BillTunell (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of this page, there is a "toolbox". The first of the links in it says "disambig links". Click on it, and a list of links that need to be redirected to the correct article will appear. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It caught two issues that are now fixed. BillTunell (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The External links section is a bit large, can it be trimmed? I don't think we need so many gallery links or biographies. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a treatment at WP:External Links and as a result, substantially reworked the section. Details above. BillTunell (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for non-free content concerns:

  • File:Robinson paige monarchs.jpg: showing two players, standing to each other, impart no significance (neither is there critical commentary on this scene: "Larry Doby ... and Satchel Paige played for the Cleveland Indians," or Robinson's stint at the Monarchs are not critical statements nor do they require illustration).
  • File:Jackie robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg: "... a $325,000 bronze sculpture ... depicting oversized nine-foot busts of Robinson and his brother Mack ..." is perfectly illustrated with text alone (especially when Robinson's head, in various angles, is displayed prominently throughout the article), neither does it have enough significance (thoroughly lacking in critical commentary) to warrant its inclusion.

I congratulate Bill for finding the non-copyrighted images of Robinson in his athetlete and military days, but non-free content issues from previous FACs still remain. Jappalang (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I disagree and would like to keep the images, but your point of view is welcome.
I obviously was over-optimistic about anticipated suggestions to the article's text, as opposed to images. But given the above changes to the text, I still anticipate that the image issue will end up being the only controversial element of this FAC review. If the inclusion of one or both of the above images is the only barrier to FAC status, then I'd like the reviewing adminsitrator to confirm that fact, if at all possible. At least then we'll have resolution. BillTunell (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (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/Jackie_Robinson/archive3&oldid=1088823116"