Wikipedia:Peer review/Jimmy McAleer/archive1

Jimmy McAleer

I've listed this B-class sports biography for peer review because it appears to be close to GA status. Any recommendations to improve or expand this article are welcome. I would ask reviewers to pay close attention to MOS issues. In addition, please be on the lookout for prose that lacks clarity and precision. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

twelsht (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

I wish I could be more helpful with these reviews, but you keep giving me great articles to read!!! Honestly, you need to be a shittier writer if you want a more constructive review!!! All kidding aside, this article is a GA now, and would easily pass GA review if nominated at WP:GAC. Also, if you have prose concerns, try asking for help at the league of copyeditors. I am not very good at copyediting, but they are. You get much better results if, besides listing the article, you drop a personal note on an editors talk page, like you did with mine. Just like your last article, this one is well written and easy to follow, meticulously referenced, and looks feature quality as it stands today. I would skip GA and go straight for an WP:FAC nomination. You should be very proud. The ONLY issue I can see, and some one will catch it at FAC, is that there are hyphens where there should be ndashes. You can either manually fix these, OR, go to User:Brighterorange. He has an automated script he can run on the article which fixes a lot of those pointless and easy to miss MOS issues, like the hyphen to ndash conversions, and he is always happy to help with those things. Just drop a note on his talk page, and he will be sure to help out. Other than that, this is a great article. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I caught. You switch usage of the Washington Senators with the Washington Nationals several times throughout the article. I know that they used both names at various times during their history, and it appears they may have changed their names during his tenure there. I would reword this so it is more clear. It appears that they are two separate teams, and this needs to be cleared up. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, Thank you for all your feedback--and your kind words!! I'll keep an eye out for cases where I used Washington Senators and Washington Nationals interchangeably. This doesn't surprise me. Earlier, I ran into the same problem with the Cleveland Blues, a team that is often referred to (prematurely) as the Cleveland Indians. Thanks also for recommending Brighterorange's automated script. No matter how closely I review an article beforehand, certain MOS issues tend to elude me. I'll contact Brightorange right now. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check all of that CLOSELY too... The Nationals/Senators thing gets very confusing, not just in this article, but in source material as well. It is often not clear when each name was used (indeed, if I remember correctly, both names were in use at the same time during some periods of the teams existence). The Wikipedia article on the Twins, for example, always refers to them as the Senators (except for a passing mention of the Nationals name). Also, the uninitated may NOT be aware of the fact that the current National League franchise is the FOURTH different Nationals/Senators franchise in DC (the first, the AA/NL team from the 1890's went defunct, the second is now the Twins, the third is now the Rangers, and the fourth is the former Expos franchise)... Maybe a footnote or something so that this is clear, but does not interfer with the flow of the text. Sometimes a footnote can be useful as a way of explaining something in detail, but which is of marginal importance to the narative of the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page: Washington Nationals (disambiguation) actually explains it quite well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is GOOD to know! It sounds as though I should use the name, Washington Senators, and note parenthetically that the team was popularly known as the "Nationals." I ran into a similar bit of confusion when working on Youngstown Ohio Works. All of the newspaper coverage referred to the "Champs," which was not the official name of the franchise. This is a much bigger issue, given the importance of the team. I'll go with "Senators" and point out that "Nationals" (or "Nats") was commonly used by fans. Thanks for this observation!! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is to confirm that Brighterorange ran his automated script for endashes. I substituted Washington Senators for Washington Nationals, noting parenthetically that the team was popularly known as "the Nationals." I also followed your suggestion to request additional copy editing from the League of Copy Editors. Thanks, again, for your feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the last paragraph you wanted me to check over. It looks exactly how I would do it. Citing the author directly ("As John Doe said in .....") is the exact way to handle a situation where the material may be controversial. Since it isn't a widespread account, and relies on the word of a single report, naming the author of that report ensures that it is clear WHO says it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) One more thing I thought of. It is by NO MEANS required, but you may want to consider using {{Mlbretired}} as an infobox. It is more informative; though infoboxes are moot in FAC discussions, and I do not endorse one over the other. Look at Joe Torre to see how well it organizes information... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've never before read that Johnson had a vested financial interest in defending Stahl, and a published account by someone who claimed to have heard it from a deceased party in the conflict (one who himself had an axe to grind) struck me as dubious. I'm glad to hear this passage doesn't come off as conjecture. The infobox you recommended looks great! I'll try to incorporate it into the article this evening. Thanks, again, -- twelsht (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caught some more issues:

Done You say that he started managing the Blues in 1900, but the infobox says 1901...
Done There is still a Nationals that needs to be turned into a Senators
Done In the section on his time with the Blues, you only mention a single game. Is there ANY more information on this time? What was his general record as a manager? The single game against the Tigers seems to be out of proportion.

Sorry to keep coming up with more stuff, but you know, each read I spot a few more things... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no need to apologize! Thanks for catching these things. I'm not sure I can expand much on McAleer's management of the Blues, because he was with them a rather short time. But your point is well taken. I'll see what I can dig up on the Blues' record. If anything else catches your eye, don't hesitate to mention it. Thanks, as always! -- twelsht (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this discrepancy. The correct date was 1901. The AL Blues didn't exist in 1900. While their record was terrible (they ended the season with 54 wins and 82 losses), McAleer wasn't responsible. He only managed the team for three games before moving on to St. Louis. Thanks, again, for catching this! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC) twelsht (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Daysleeper47

I too found this article well cited, well written, and with enough substance for FA status. I am not a good copy editor, so I can't help much in that area, but found your citations right on. Clearly, Twelsht, working on the Youngstown, Ohio FAC had a great impact on your ability to follow the MOS and the Featured Article criteria; I applaud that. I learned a lot from that process as well. I have to agree with Jayron32 and say that you should request a FAC as soon as you feel reasonable. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daysleeper, I really appreciate your support! I certainly agree with your assessment of the peer review process. What a resource! Thanks, again, -- twelsht (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wikipediatoperfection

I agree with the above assessments that the article is ready for GA status. It is well written and well cited. I am not a copy editor, but it looks decent to me. I do not, however, think it is ready for FA status. Here is what I would work on:

Done Expand the discussion of his introduction of the president throwing out the first pitch. This seems to be his most important, longest lasting contribution to baseball tradition, and it only gets a single mention in the introduction.
Done Expand the section on his playing career
Done Split the discussion of his part-ownership of the Red Sox into a different section from his career as manager.
Done Take a look at the article on Joe Torre and decide whether to use the term "Managerial career" or "Managing career." Either way it should be standardized across the articles on baseball managers.
Done Break the manager section into subsections on his time with different teams

Once this peer review is over you should immediately nominate the article for GA status. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I acted on your suggestions, and they improved the article. The "Playing career" section now includes material that places McAleer's career in the context of his era--a rather rowdy one, I might add. Regarding the customary request for the U.S. President to throw out the first ball of the season, I drew a bit more attention to McAleer's role in its initiation. But I don't see a need to devote much more space to this event. It really wasn't the highlight of his career. The fact that McAleer is remembered primarily for this innovation shows how thoroughly his role in the development of the AL has been overlooked. I acted more fully on your other recommendations. Please don't hesitate to let me know if anything else catches your eye. Thanks for your feedback! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]