Talk:Duff Cooley

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 09:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I will copy-edit the article as I go; feel free to revert anything that you are not happy with. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This looks pretty good. There were a few prose issues, but rather than list them, I cleared them up myself. As I say, alter anything you are not happy with and check it still makes baseball sense. My main issue is with referencing and with a few details on comprehensiveness, but I see no obstacles to this being a GA.

Referencing

• I notice many statistical facts are uncited, but I suspect they are covered by the General Reference to his figures. My personal preference (and I believe it is general practise in baseball and other sports articles) is to reference all the facts to this rather than leave a general reference. Otherwise, it is hard to know if a fact is supported by a particular reference or a general reference. It is easily done and I think would improve the article. Most other GAs I have seen follow this method. I have listed what I consider to be uncited facts below.

Appreciate the copy-edits.

General points and questions

• Where does "Sir Richard" come from? I'm not sure it belongs here as it is not mentioned in the article, and it needs a reference anyway. I notice that it is explained in ref 1, and this should be included as it adds some colour to his life as we don't seem to know much about him.

Added with a reference.

• The information on height and weight disrupts the flow slightly; the lead is a bit stat heavy anyway, unavoidably. Is it really important? I wouldn't insist on removing it, but I don't think it adds to the article. Can it be added to the infobox? That seems a more natural place for it.

I don't think it disrupts the flow (last sentence of paragraph anyway). I think it adds to the article in that it gives the reader a general idea of the player's physical appearance, if only stats.

• I would lose the "Early life" section and merge it with career as it is only one sentence. Maybe rename the section "Early life and career"?

Added to career.

• His batting stats for his first season appear to be unreferenced.

Referenced.

No, the stats remain unreferenced. Only the "youngest player" part is referenced. Fixed it myself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Could we expand what is meant by a utility player? I know it is linked, but I think a phrase such as "utility player, meaning he ..." would aid the reader a little.

Explained.

• I think a ref is needed to support his career-high figures for 1895.

Referenced

• I get the impression "seven walks and three strikeouts" is supposed to tell me something, but my baseball is not up to scratch here. Is this good or bad, and does it explain why he was traded? If so, could it be explained? If not, maybe remove it as a distraction - it is not mentioned in his previous seasons.

Removed.

• Ref for his batting statistics for 1896 for the Browns? Also, what was his record for the Phillies in that season?

Referenced batting stats. What do you mean by "his record for the Phillies"? Albacore (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• "finished 62–68": For the benefit of anyone reading outside North America, could this be linked? Maybe to Winning percentage?

Linked

Moved the link to the statistic. Revert if it doesn't work as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ref for stats between 1897 and 1900? Also, why no mention of 1898 and 1899?

Added 1898 and 1899 batting stats, referenced stats.

No ref for 1900. Did it myself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Next season, under manager Al Buckenberger, Cooley played in 135 games, more than double the previous year." Slightly confusing here. More than double he played for the Beaneaters or the Stars? The previous sentence says he was promoted but it is not clear if he was promoted during the season or after it. Saying he played more than double suggests he played for the Beaneaters during the 1901 season: i.e. he was promoted in the middle of the season. If so, what were his figures for the season? (I hope I've made it clear what I mean here...)

Clarified.

• I know "hit for the cycle" is linked, but to save the reader, again maybe a brief explanation here would be good?

Explained

• Figures for 1903?

Added 1903 batting average

• "He finished the 1904 season with six total errors, five in the outfield and one at first base. Cooley's 70 RBIs were eighth most in the NL. After the season, in October 1904, he was selected off the Beaneater's waivers by the Detroit Tigers.": None of this has a reference.

Referenced

• Ty Cobb: Even I know that he is a big, big name, and although I really doubt anyone will come to this article who does not know who Cobb is, it would be nice to have a sentence saying who he was or what he did in his career; after all, I imagine this is one of Cooley's claims to fame. In fact, I would suggest adding a little of this to the lead.

Added.

• Any suggestion as to why he never returned after breaking his leg? The next section says retired, but did he jump or was he pushed? The biographical dictionary says he was sold but chose to retire instead (see below).

Biographical dictionary just says he retired; added.

• "He managed the Topeka Kaws in 1922 and briefly pitched for the team." Ref?

Removed.

• "Cooley was buried in Grove Hill Memorial Park in Dallas.": Ref?

Ref'd

• "Cooley later became an alcoholic and divorced his wife, Louise." This implies a connection, but the source merely says that he was divorced and does not say when or why this happened.

Reworded.

• However, it may be worth rephrasing the section: What about "Following his retirement from baseball, Cooley moved to Dallas, Texas and began to work as a salesman. In his final years, he battled alcoholism, which partially contributed to his death from heat stroke in Dallas on August 9, 1937. By then, he and his wife Louise were divorced and he left no children." (All this is supported by ref 1) What do you think? Or even mention earlier in the section that "he was married to Louise, but the couple had no children and later divorced".

reworded.

Comprehensiveness

• Some seasons are not mentioned and others are; for consistency, I think at least his batting average should be included to show how well he was performing (or not).

Added.

• Just a couple of things I notice from the biographical dictionary that are not included, apart from the "Sir Richard" above. Nothing about playing for Topeka, nothing about his game on September 30 (which seems to have been very successful, and if it merits mention in a biographical article, it should be reflected here) and nothing about him being sold back to the Beaneaters but choosing to retire instead. And nowhere are his career batting figures mentioned in this article.

Added retiring, September 30, and Topeka

General

• All references check out: spot checks reveal no problems with copyvio and they support the cited information. Dablinks and external links are fine (although the google books link does not go to the actual book, just its introductory page, but this does not bother me).
• The image seems fine, but the link to its source is dead. I also think it needs more information to prove that it was published before 1923, although the information hints it is from 1905. But without the link, we could do with something stronger.

Link to find the file here, searching "Duff Cooley". That link for the actual photo keeps going dead after around a day. So how should I phrase that on the file page? Albacore (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed. Albacore (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I will place the article on hold for the moment to allow these points to be addressed or discussed, but there is nothing major and I will pass once everything is cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I think we are getting to the point where I may have to fail this article if nothing is done in the next few days. We are coming up to two weeks now with very little having been done. I left a note on the nominator's talk-page a few days ago, but nothing has happened yet. If nothing happens by 11 November, and if I don't hear from the nominator, I will fail the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, everything seems fine. The prose may be a little borderline as it is quite repetitive and there is took much "Cooley/he ..." throughout, but I really don't see a reasonable way around without too much fuss. I've done a little pruning to vary the sentences slightly (as usual, revert anything I messed up or changed too much) and added a few last missing refs as I noted above. (I have not done any further copyvio or ref checks for the new information.) Passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)