Talk:Ned Williamson/GA1

Ned Williamson GA Review

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

Lead

Done"During the first eight years of his career, he led the league in assists six times, both fielding percentage and double plays five times." This sentence is either incomplete or requires a conjunction.

Indianapolis

Done"That season he played in all 63 of the team's games as the starting third baseman," Could be well worth wikilinking third baseman, as shortstop is also later on.

Chicago

Done"He batted .294, finished second amongst league leaders with 13 triples, second in base on balls with 24, and eighth in doubles with 20." Similar to above. The sentence has two main verbs, without a conjunction.
Done"The high amount of doubles Williamson hit was attributed to the the short dimensions of Chicago's Lakeshore Park, whose dimensions were 186 feet (57 m) in left field, 300 feet (91 m) in center field, and 190 feet (58 m) in right field." Uses "dimensions" twice in the same sentence. I would suggest changing one.
Done"Williamson added to those records by getting three hits," Getting is a poor verb to use because of its number of meanings; I would suggest changing it.
Done"Under the rules of the day, the ground rules of each park were set by the home team." Rules is used twice. It might not be easy to change either, but if so I would suggest doing so.

Late career

Done"For the 1890 season, he joined with many of his fellow Major League players who jumped to the Players League." Doesn't make sense; needs rewriting.
Done"This was his last season in Majors Leagues, as he retired at the season's end." It's not particularly contentious, but do you have a reference for this?

Re-written, incorporating both sentences, and eliminating unsources information.Neonblak ^talk - 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General

It's no longer seen as desirable to wikilink to years, even to specific seasons/years, unless exactly necessary. I can't see the necessity to some of the year links, particularly in the lead, but also those throughout the article.

What I did here was link a specific Major League Baseball season, per common practice, the first time it appears in the article. There doesn't seem to be a specific guidline considering baseball years. I agree with you about linking years by themselves though.Neonblak ^talk - 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in the line: "During the next three seasons, his batting statistics fluctuated from year to year. His batting average rose from .251 in 1880 to .282 in 1882;" do people really need to click on 1880 and 1882 specific links to find out what went on the same season. It doesn't have any relevance to Williamson's stats for that season. See Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates for more info. Peanut4 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and it is well taken, I have removed the baseball season wikis in the body of the article.Neonblak ^talk - 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it has context, there is no problem linking it. After all, there's no point adding extra links which may take people away from your work when it's not necessary. Peanut4 (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI don't understand why his career is broken up in level three headings, which seems the best way to do it, but then also level two headings. I suggest level three throughout.
It seems a short article. Are there any more sources available? For an older-period player, I would expect more books than web sources.

Very similar to another GA article of mine, Hugh Daily, there is just isn't alot of readily available material about this player.Neonblak ^talk - 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit to do, but I'll put it on hold? Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review, it actually don't seem very difficult to do these, I will try and get this done by mid-week.Neonblak ^talk - 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, completed what I could, left comments on other ideas, and made other changes suggested by a peer review. Let me know what other changes and fixes that would be necessary.Neonblak ^talk - 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment at the peer review, that his death probably ought to be included in the lead. Everything else looks fine. Peanut4 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the lead a brief overview of of his knee injury and his death.Neonblak ^talk - 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A short article which meets all the GA criteria. Good luck with any future expansion. Peanut4 (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]