Talk:Art Houtteman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.
Good article Art Houtteman has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 11, 2008.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
Art Houtteman is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by Players task force.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Good Article review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is very close to passing. However, there are a few things I would like to see changed before listing it as a Good Article. As for the criteria:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Please see my comments below.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Again, I have identified my concerns below.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I will place this review on hold for seven days. Please address my concerns below over the next seven days. Notify me on my talk page if you are ready for reevaluation earlier.


Per the recommendation on the Good Article Nominations page, I have fixed several minor errors.

  • I understand that one of the defining features of Houtteman was his “hard luck”, but claiming that things happened on the field because of bad luck is speculative and unencyclopedic. I have left in the statements about people believing he had bad luck, as I feel this is important. I believe this is sufficient to inform the reader about the possibility of bad luck plaguing his career.

My remaining concerns are as follows:

  • In the lead, I think it would read much better if the year (1945) was moved to the previous sentence (“Houtteman was signed in 1945 by…”).
  • In the “Early life” section, a reference is needed immediately following the quotation (“perfect pitching motion”).
  • In the “Hard luck Houtteman” subsection, you should include the abbreviation for earned run average, as you use the abbreviation later (eg. “an earned run average (ERA) of 5.33”).
  • Later in this subsection, it’s a little confusing that he is named the best prospect in the International League. A mention of the fact that he was sent back to Buffalo would help.
  • Three sentences later (“Despite his newfound top prospect status, Houtteman remained a top prospect as he began the 1947 season in Buffalo.”), I’m confused again. It would be more clear if “remained a top prospect as he” was removed.
  • The third sentence in the “Hard luck Houtteman” section was quite confusing the first time I read it (specifically “looking at a firm spot” and “laying a foundation of”).
  • Later in that paragraph, Newhouser’s quotation needs a reference.
  • In the “Ace of the staff” subsection, MVP should be written out the first time it is used (“Most Valuable Player (MVP)”).
  • Near the end of the “Military and return to Tigers” subsection, I found “After signing a contract…” confusing. Are you saying that he signed a contract just prior to the 1953 season?
  • A reference is needed for Houtteman’s first quotation in the “Cleveland Indians” section.
  • In the final paragraph of the “Cleveland Indians” section, “in the doghouse” seems too colloquial. Is there a better way of phrasing this?
  • In addition, the sentence in which this is found just seems to have too much going on. Can it be split up into a couple of sentences?
  • “Doghouse” is also used later in the paragraph.
  • In the final paragraph of the “Baltimore Orioles and minor leagues” section, the word “impressive” should be replaced with something that is less point of view (for example, the statistics that made this impressive).

Please note that this is the first time I have performed a Good Article review, so I am open to feedback if you believe any of my comments to be in error. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the only ones I haven't addressed are three of the final four points. The "doghouse" term is rather colloquial, yes, but I'm not sure of a proper synonym that would work well. The reason why impressive is okay, in my opinion, is because it comes directly from the reference noted at the end of the sentence, hence why i used it. Wizardman 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we give an explanation for "in the doghouse", then? Something along the lines of "There was talk about Houtteman being in the doghouse, or out of favor with the team's management, during the 1956 season..." might work. That way, it would also take care of explaining what it means later in the paragraph. As for the word "impressive", I looked over the reference and thought that it would be okay to keep it as long as the statement is attributed to someone rather than just appearing as a point of view statement. If you're fine with the phrasing now, we can consider that point finished as well. I will look over the article again to make sure it's al good. If it is, I will pass it as soon as we can figure out how to work on the "doghouse" issue (if you're not happy with the suggestion I made). Thanks for your hard work, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I looked the whole thing over again. Aside from waiting for your response to the doghouse thing, I wanted to bring up two hree final points.
  1. At the end of the first paragraph of the "Military and return to Tigers" section, it seems awkward to end a quotation with an abbreviation. I assume that it's quoted directly from a newspaper, but "Camp Pickett, Va." doesn't seem right. My preference would be to remove "Va." since Camp Pickett is wikilinked. If you disagree and want it left this way, this is one that I'm willing to let slide.
  2. The final word in the following quotation: "We’ll be back in the first division this season because Art Houtteman is back. Houtteman makes us at least a dozen games beter than last years." is awkward. Is that how it appears in the source? Gramatically, the "s" should not be there.
You've done a great job with my recommendations. I'll check back when I see that there has been some activity (I have the article on my watchlist). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The doghouse suggestion sounds good. As for the other two things I'll take a look and fix them tonight. Wizardman 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I added in the clarification about the doghouse, so it's just those final two suggestions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for helping out with it as well. Wizardman 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed, and I am passing this article as a Good Article. Thank you for your hard work and feedback. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)