Wikipedia:Peer review/Philip Humber/archive1

Philip Humber

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Before April 21, Philip Humber was a failed top prospect who was coming off a 2011 season that made it appear he might be a serviceable MLB player after all. This was the sorry state of his article.

Then, on April 21, he threw the 21st perfect game in MLB history, forever etching his name in baseball lore. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) and I undertook a massive overhaul of this article, including a 5x expansion that took it from nearly 5k of almost entirely unsourced prose to over 25k of top quality article writing. It just passed as a GA today, and we would like to nominate it for FA status. Given the timeframe here, we don't want to rush it. We agree that this article could use fresh, unbiased eyes to suggest any areas that need to be addressed before this work of art can become an FA.

Thanks, – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment I'm not sure about this, but aren't Portal links supposed to be in the "See also" or "External links" sections, instead of the "Personal" one? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like putting them in a section like that, but I have done it before. I created a "See also" section, which is a better place for the portals. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (general comment, remember this isn't just for baseball aficionados, it's for everyone, so make an effort to explain all those complex things).."

"He then went on to star for" bit POV.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't overlink minor league baseball in the lead.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put (MLB) after "Major League Baseball" before you use the abbreviation.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox, Win-loss record seems to have become Win–loss record (per WP:DASH).
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"When Humber was 11 years old, he visited the..." -> "Aged 11, he visited..."
- O.K. although I was thinking about "At age 11".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Humber played for three state champions.[2] Humber was raised with a batting cage in" no need to keep repeating Humber...
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"compiled a 4–0 record with a 1.09 ERA" what's ERA?
- Defined there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He went 7–2 as a " what does that mean?
- Since record in the previous sentence was changed to a link of win-loss record, does that clarify this? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" .371 batting average with 6 home runs" you link home run (which I think most people know) but you don't explain what a batting average is (which I think most people don't know...).
- Batting average is now a link. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you suddenly explain what ERA is and link it a few paras later. Make sure you explain and link all these terms first time round.
- It is now. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Baseball America rated Humber ..." what is Baseball America? Perhaps "National publication Baseball America..." or whatever.
- Isn't an italicized link enough?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Humber, Niemann, and Townsend were all selected..." -> "He, Niemann..."
- Is "Niemann, and Townsend were all selected along with Humber in the first eight picks" O.K.?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" a $3.0 million" any need for the ".0"?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"who wanted Humber to alter his mechanics and adopt a long toss program" now then. This probably means something to baseball fans, but if you take that hat off and read it as a plain reader, it makes no sense whatsoever! Perhaps you could be clearer, more neutral and encyclopaedic.
- I have tried to reword this, but I think I need some links that don't exist to do it properly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave it a shot. Is that better? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start. Ping me when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be closed, or are there more comments coming? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]