Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [1].

Jackie Robinson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it now meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It recently passed a mildly rigorous GA at Talk:Jackie Robinson/GA1 and I think it now meets the FA criteria. It's well written, thoroughly referenced, and I believe neutral. It's been stable for at least the last two months (probably many more) and has a lead that summarizes the article. I thought quite a bit about the section names and organization, and I think the current format is FA worthy. I used Sandy Koufax (another baseball FA) as a bit of a template, but didn't follow it too closely due to the difference between great pitcher and great player plus civil rights hero. The cite web and cite book templates have been used consistently; there may be some MOS minutiae that I've missed. The big difference between this version and the GA version is I've added info that I think makes it comprehensive while trying not to stray from the topic. Whole books have been written about JR, and even about single years of his life, but I think this article covers him at the right level of detail. The article has almost too many images, but they're all free. I'm open to changing the images in any way. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Oppose - 1c. Quality of sourcing is inadequate for a subject like Jackie Robinson, who has had so much written about him over the years, and is one of the most important figures in the history of American sports. Here are a few random examples, which show problems throughout.

  • Reference 46 (TheJournalofSportsHistory.org) is nothing but a bare address, with no means of checking the source. Also no publisher or date of last access.
  • Other refs lack publisher and access date, including numbers 27 (Gale - Free Resources - Black History - Biographies - Jackie Robinson), 30 (Jackie Robinson Papers), and 65 (The Sizzler by Rick Huhn). There are others like this, so please audit all of them.
  • Printed publishers should be in italics. Non-printed publishers shouldn't.
  • Many sources of suspect reliability, such as xtimeline.com (ref 26), LarryLester42.com (ref 35), baddogblues.com (ref 64), and economicexpert.com (ref 79) This is by no means an exhastive list; Ealdgyth, our resident source checker, will have a field day when she returns from her vacation.
  • Formatting is faulty in reference 83. (Jackie changed face of sports, where the title is given twice instead of the author's last name.)
  • Overall, I sense an over-reliance on Internet sources. Even many of the books used are from Google Books, though they may just be links for easy access. I don't normally complain about Internet sources, but a high level of sourcing is expected for a subject like Robinson. In my view, this fails to meet that standard.

The sourcing doesn't fill me with confidence that the other aspects of the article meet FA standards. Therefore, I want to see these examples, along with the rest of the sourcing problems, resolved before I start reading the article. Hopefully, Ealdgyth will be back soon to give you a full list of issues. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe I've fixed the references. I did the ones you mentioned and then went through them myself. There are a couple issues left, though. There is one source I've left whose meeting of RS can be reasonably debated. It is larrylester42.com. Although it is a personal web site, it is written by a guy who appears to be one of the leading black baseball historians. According to the about page, he has founded a negro league museum and worked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. His list of novels (see here) about black baseball is also very extensive. The second issue is that I can't find anything that shows how to format format the publisher part for web sites. I looked at the manual of style, a few TFAs, and the cite web template but there doesn't seem to be a consistent way to do it. For instance, should biography.com be Biography, Biography.com, biography.com, Biogrpahy, The Biography Channel, etc. It's also a problem for baseball-almanac.com, should it be Baseball Almanac, Baseball-Almanac.com, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my own editing, I like to use the name that our site gives a company, when possible. Therefore, The Biography Channel would be the winner; I also like how it clarifies that it is a TV network. Meanwhile, I'm not convinced about the reliability of Baseball Almanac. It's been questioned at previous FACs, and hasn't been confirmed to be reliable. Here are a few more notes:
  • Reference 88 (Jackie changed face of sports) still has formatting issues.
  • Reference 98 (Jackie Robinson School) is a dead link, according to our link checker tool.
  • Reference 100 (from the Daily News) shouldn't be in all caps.
  • Page ranges need en dashes to replace hyphens.
  • Tip for printed publishers: the work parameter in the templates will output the publisher in italics. Citations from sources such as The Sporting News and the Washington Post can be changed by using this option.
  • Most importantly, please find sources to resolve the cite tags. That is grounds for a quick-failure, and leaves the impression that this didn't receive the proper preparation.
Meanwhile, I looked in one section and was not happy with what I found in the writing. I'm going to make some fixes; please note them and make similar changes elsewhere where necessary. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Please make sure that all images have a complete summary in the form of an {{Information}} template.

The images appear to be fine, as of today. If you add more, let me know and I'll check those. --Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (about sources mainly). This article has been on my Watchlist for some weeks and I have made a few edits here and there. I live in England, so it is hard for me to judge the reliability of some of the sources. Can someone confirm that The Biography Channel (7 cites), MLB.com (18 cites), Sports.ESPN.go.com (9 cites and installs spyware by the way), and the Public Broadcasting Service (5 cites) are reliable. For references 45, 53,54, and 70 there are no p.s for pages and no page numbers are given for references 34 and 35. I see in the nominators blurb at the top that "whole books have bee written about....", it's a pity that more use has not been made of them. Graham Colm Talk 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 35 and (now) 34 link to the page that they get their info from. The Library of Congress ref (35) is just one page. I don't know what page the American Heritage article (34) was on back in '84, but you can read it by clicking now. I added p.s so all the refs should have them now.
It sounds like you want confirmation from someone else, but I believe the sources you mention are considered reliable. The Biography Channel and ESPN are the national cable TV channels devoted to bios and sports. They're both owned by giant media companies like Disney and NBC. MLB.com is the official website of major league baseball. PBS is like the US version of the BBC's TV arm.
Sports.ESPN.go.com is the correct address for ESPN. It's because they're a part of Disney's go.com network. My pop up blocker blocked an add from them, which is what I think you mean by spyware. If they're really installing spyware something will have to be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this, thanks. I will decide on supporting later. It's early days and I would like to see more reviews. Graham Colm Talk 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, for sourcing concerns as well.
  • I am not a baseball expert in any sense. But I recognize the role sports played in integrating social life in the U.S., and Robinson's part in that was extensive. I read two sections, Military career and 1947–Breaking the color barrier. In Military career you use a juvenile nonfiction book (by Denise Lewis Patrick) as a source in this section, an encyclopedia entry, a description of his papers, and another encyclopedia entry. Your bibliography includes Robinson's autobiography and five other biographies; why are these sources not used? The same sourcing pattern is used in 1947–Breaking the color barrier: most of the references are to web-based articles.
  • My point is this: Robinson, I'm sure you know, is huge. Freakin' huge. He deserves to have a hard-hitting FA, but that article needs to go to the main source of all of these various encyclopedia articles and tertiary sources you're using. They refer back to these books that you cited once or in Rampersand's case, nine times or so. You're depending on sources that are mediocre to write an article that should leave them all behind. Go to the books, use them primarily, and when you're able to compare the Wikipedia article on Robinson to Biography.com or PBS' articles and know that yours is better—better written, sourced, and more comprehensive, then it will be FA quality.
  • I also find the writing to be ok, but not particularly engaging or brilliant. I think you could infuse more quotes about Robinson's impact from his biographers, baseball historians, etc. Especially in the lead. The lead should have a whopper of a quote about his importance. You can find those quotes in the aforementioned books. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Military career section uses a children's book, a magazine article, and two articles from the Library of Congress. I could replace the childrens book, but I feel the other three should be acceptable. I can also fix the other problems you mention, except switching everything over to book refs. I was unaware of this requirement to use books. I guess I'll wait a while and see what others say. If books are required I guess I'll have to withdraw this nom, since that would require almost an entire rewrite. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the information being comprehensive, it's not a requirement as such. It very much depends on the topic. Many topics such as video games and pop culture articles have no books available and are quite short on print references. However, Robinson has had quite a bit of literature written about him. It's not the fact that it's web based vs. print based, but that the books are so much more comprehensive and better. Where is the best information about Robinson? In his biographies. There are excerpts and articles similar to what you are writing that are available, but for an FA the best sources should be your first stop. I know it is frustrating to face this at FAC, but Robinson is a pioneer in sports and social history in the US. He deserves this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you kind of quantify what proportion of sources need to be from books for you to support. Right now, about 20 books are sourcing about 35-40 statements. I am a bit frustrated I guess, but mostly I want to know if I should stop this FAC now, possibly to be restarted later, or if I should continue. I don't follow FAC, so I don't know if this will be a deal breaker. In your experience are other editors and whoever finally decides (Sandy?) going to say not enough books and fail it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much a ratio, I suppose. If you do not have these books at your fingers' reach right now, it might be advisable to withdraw the nomination, get most of them, read through them, change out the citations for the majority of web-based articles you're using now, and scan for more information, quotes, Robinson's own thoughts and feelings, and other information. What you will also be able to find are really interesting stories about Robinson that can be included in the article. You have the potential to provide a free article to the world on Robinson that will relate why he's such an interesting figure, and your article has the potential to leave all these other web-based articles behind in quality. Because the folks who wrote the articles you're using got paid and are moving on to something else. You're taking patient time to meet their quality and exceed it. Something else that can't really be received through many web-based articles is the energy in a good biography. Robinson's life stood for something, and you want to express that in your article; you want to go beyond merely describing his contributions and life story. You want to tell a story that grabs your readers, puts them on the field where he got spiked by other players, jeered at by fans and other teams, and saw his own team rally around him. I will help you copy edit it for this kind of energy if you find the sources. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peregrine has hit on it when he says "If books are required I guess I'll have to withdraw this nom, since that would require almost an entire rewrite". I would anticipate than an article sourced to Robinson biographies would contain different information than one sourced to television programs, short magazine articles, and children's books. These kinds of pieces are written for specific audiences and are often extremely selective, sensationalistic, and simplified. Reliable iographies tend to be more inclusive and complex. That is why we need to use the most reliable biographies we can find as a starting point for this article. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per Wikipedia:Lead section, specifically the subsection titled "First sentence content" on that page, I would suggest amending the first sentence of the lead section. While it is good that the first sentence is brief, it does not included the main reason why Jackie is notable, specifically that he was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era. I would suggest that the sentence should read something like, "Jack Roosevelt "Jackie" Robinson (January 31, 1919 – October 24, 1972) was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era." Please note that "Major League Baseball" is capitalized in my suggested version of the sentence. Hope this comment helps. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2008 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jackie_Robinson/archive1&oldid=1207883038"