Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard

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 promoted 04:59, 11 May 2008.

[edit] J. R. Richard

previous FAC
Check external links

I am re-nominating this article for featured article status. The article received opposition in the previous FAC because of of an issue with a fair use image I used and because of some copyediting concerns. I believe these concerns have been addressed. The article no longer contains that fair use image (in fact, there are no images at the moment, but I will probably find some free image that has some encyclopedic value for the article). Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs) and I have copyedited and removed some of the weasel words and superfluous stats that previously pervaded the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment If no free images can be found, I believe you can use fair-use images, which I'd like to see in the article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it's more complicated than that. Per criterion #1 of WP:NFCC, fair use images should be used when a free equivalent cannot be found. In the previous FAC, some users commented that the image had a weak fair use rationale, since Richard was a famous baseball player during the 1970s and 1980s who is still alive. Free images might be difficult to come by, but it's not impossible. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, very well then. It's not a big deal, but an image of some sorts would make the article slightly more appealing. I'll do a full reading of it later or tomorrow. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I added two images: one of Nolan Ryan and another of the Houston Astrodome. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok, those images look good. Also, you might want to add non-breaking spaces in the article after all numbers. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: double check links; one appears dead. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If I may offer an opinion, I believe Retrosheet is a RS. Here's a Sports Illustrated piece on the site.[1] Giants2008 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
All four websites are authoritative baseball sources. I think my explanation here will demonstrate why all four meet the reliable sources policy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sports Illustrated on Baseball Library: "a comprehensive source with Britannica-like accuracy".[2] Giants2008 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I clicked on a random team page at Baseball Library, and look what I saw on the bottom: "Game information provided by Retrosheet".[3] If SI calls Baseball Library an accurate source, isn't it indirectly saying the same about Retrosheet? Giants2008 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006
  • Have you considered summary style?
    • The article is not abnormally long, so I don't think splitting the article is necessary. If the article was twice as large, then I would definitely consider doing this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you consider converting the Harvard style footnotes into direct references and eliminating the "references" section? The mixture looks odd.
    • The books in the "References" section are all covered in the footnotes section. It's quite customary, as far as I know, to have a "References" section listing all books used and a "Notes" section for individual footnotes and comments about the text. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Slightly hesitant support - The most important MOS issue has been addressed, but the refs still look a bit ugly to me... oh, well. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 15:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I would like to see a citation for "In the winter of 1994, Richard was homeless and destitute and lived under a bridge in Houston." I remember hearing the story somewhere, but statements like that should always be cited. Perhaps current note 2 (Sporting News) would be useful for this.
  • Should there be a comma before the second "and" in the above sentence?
  • Since you have his time as a Christian minister cited in After baseball, you don't need that referenced in the lead.
  • It wouldn't hurt to have his final career statistics referenced. It should be easy enough to find a good source for that.
  • I meant in the text of Attempt at a comeback, not the infobox. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the infobox should be referenced. Does anyone know the rule on this? Giants2008 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no rule as far as I know. I don't think it does any harm to have the reference the stats in the infobox. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reference in 1979 season, currently number 64 (1979 pitching splits) should be after parenthesis
  • This isn't fixed at all. It's still in the same place. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't like the way this is worded: "an organization founded by Mudcat Grant that consists of the all African American pitchers who have won at least twenty major league games in a single season".
  • You accidentally removed "of". Please re-insert. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I clicked on the Black Aces link, and it appears that Richard was the ninth member, not eighth. Does Grant exclude himself from the group?
  • Another statement I'm not crazy about: "On September 6, Richard made his major league debut with the Astros in the second game of a doubleheader at just 21 years of age against San Francisco Giants." Try this instead: "On September 6, Richard made his major league debut at just 21 years of age, in the second game of a doubleheader against the San Francisco Giants." The previous sentence says he came into MLB with the Astros, so it doesn't need to be repeated. Giants2008 (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please re-link September 6. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More comments

  • In 1979 season section, please link year in June 23, 1976.
    Done. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Mainstay with the Astros: "lost pitching ace Don Wilson". I would prefer staff ace, or ace, or staff leader.
    How about "pitching staff ace"? Staff ace, ace or staff leader might seem ambiguous to our readers unfamiliar with baseball. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's up to you. I'm a baseball fan, so I am used to such terms. If you believe they are too confusing for a general audience, go with your version. Giants2008 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Breakout season: "Richard entered the 1976 season as the pitching staff ace". Remove pitching?
    See line above. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be a good idea to link to baseball years at first mention (example 1976 in baseball. I'll leave a decision on this up to you, though.
    Most of these years are linked when they appear as full dates (June 23, 1976 for example). Individual year links are needed if they're going to provide some meaningful relevance to the article. I don't think the links would do that. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "After his professional baseball career ended, Richard returned Louisiana and invested in some business ventures." Returned to Louisiana. I'm also curious what other business ventures he got involved with besides the ill-fated oil deal.
    Fixed. I'll do some digging regarding the business ventures, but I don't think I'll find anything that I haven't already mentioned. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since he probably didn't get much media coverage then, I understand that could be difficult to find. If you can't find anything, perhaps you should just mention the oil deal? Giants2008 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I will look into this again, but last time I checked, there were no specifics regarding the oil deal. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Richard entered the 1978 season as one of the Astros' best pitchers since the team's creation in 1962" needs a reference. Giants2008 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Removed. Replaced with "Richard entered the 1978 season as the Astros' Opening Day starter." Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - 1a is pretty solid and I'm working trhough and copyediting a bit more. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, much improved. I don't see any other issues. --Laser brain (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose per 1a, although leaning toward supporting. Prose issues are easily spotted - a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor is needed. Additionally, some sections contain a lot of sportscaster-type language, especially where you are describing his performances. I've tried to point those out below. Have a fresh pair of eyes look for these. If you can imagine a Bob Uecker saying it, it's not good language for an encyclopedia. Many issues follow, but please get the general copyedit.
    • "Richard played his entire Major League, from 1971 to 1980, with the Houston Astros." Missing word?
    • "... he was selected by the Astros as the second pick in the first round of the 1969 amateur draft." Too wordy.. why not "... the Astros selected him with the second pick in the first round of the 1969 amateur draft."
    • I'm not sure a stroke is considered an "injury".
    • "... and he held the team's career record in strikeouts (1493) until 1987." Instead say "the team's record for career shutouts"
    • "Richard became involved in unsuccessful business deals and went through two divorces, which by 1994 left him homeless and destitute." The way is is worded, it's hard to tell what exactly left him homeless and destitute. It sounds like it was the divorces.. but surely it was the business deals or some combination of the two?
    • "That year, he was the starting pitcher for Lincoln High School..." The only one?
    • "In one game as a batter, he hit four consecutive home runs..." Wasn't he a batter in every game?
    • "Upon graduating from high school, he turned down more than 200 basketball scholarship offers to sign with the Houston Astros, who had made him the second overall pick in the 1969 amateur baseball draft, behind the Washington Senators' selection of outfielder Jeff Burroughs." Way too long.
    • "After the Astros drafted Richard, he was sent to play for the Covington Astros" Unnecessary passive voice.. just say "After the Astros drafted Richard, they sent him to play..."
    • What is "high-A" minor league baseball?
    • "During the season, his fastball occasionally rose over 100 miles per hour, and his slider over 93 miles per hour, which were both considered faster than those of most major-league pitchers." Sounds like he threw one fastball and it just flew around, occasionally rising over 100 miles per hour.
    • "Richard wore number 50 on his jersey..." I think the "on his jersey" part is understood without being stated.
    • "He pitched five innings of two-hit, one-run ball after giving up a leadoff home run to Pete Rose in the first inning." Pitching five innings of "ball" is sports jargon. Was the Rose home run the one run? It reads as if the one run was after the Rose run.
    • "He finished the season with a 13.50 ERA in only six innings of work and was again promptly sent back down to Triple-A..." Is the word "promptly" really needed?
    • "He pitched four innings of one-run ball and three innings of two-hit ball in his next relief outing." Sportscaster jargon.
    • "He picked up the win..." Ditto.
    • "Richard again pitched more than six innings but earned no decision after the Astros' bullpen collapsed..." Was anyone hurt when it collapsed?
    • "After starting a July 4 game against the Braves (which he won), Richard was sent into the bullpen to create room for Tom Griffin..." More sportscasting. He was not physically sent into the bullpen.. it's a figure of speech, right?
    • "At the end of the season, he stood atop the Astros' pitching staff..." Hmm.
    • "... he improved his fielding from the previous season by going the season error-free with a 1.000 fielding percentage." I think "going the season" is an awkward phrase.
    • "Richard also hit well at the plate..." As opposed to where?
    • Also, you might want to qualify that he hit well for a pitcher, as I think those stats are miserable for a normal batter.
    • "He closed out the first half of the season with back-to-back games with nine and 12 strikeout performances, against the Reds and Dodgers, respectively." Just messy.. rewrite please.
    • "He won his first four decisions that season but those victories were quickly followed by four losses." What's the difference between being "quickly followed" and just "followed" by four losses?
    • "Later examinations showed that Richard was suffering from extensive arterial thoracic outlet syndrome, that is, his clavicle and first rib pinched his subclavian artery during the pitching motion." Run-on sentence.
    • "Richard was granted free agency by the Astros on November 7, 1983, but the Astros still had faith in Richard..." Source? Your next source is just trade statistics, so you don't have a source showing why they re-signed him. --Laser brain (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • UPDATE I have exams over the next two days, so I won't be able to address article concerns until Wednesday night. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As one of the top contributors, I think it seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources unresolved: the article is almost entirely sourced to retrosheet.org, the personal hobby site of a baseball fan, which says "Retrosheet makes no guarantees of accuracy for the information that is supplied"; the site gathers data from volunteer baseball fans,[4] and says,[5]

    In order to volunteer or to obtain more information, contact David Smith at the address, telephone number, or e-mail shown below. Retrosheet is an all-volunteer organization and the costs of daily operation are largely borne by individuals who generously cover their own expenses for postage, photocopying, etc. There is one substantial continuing expense for the organization and that is the DSL connection for our computer server, which holds our website. We do request donations to help us with the monthly cost of the Internet connection.

    Sports Illustrated as cited above says, "It now operates from the basement of Smith's Newark, Del., house, which holds 11 file cabinets of data and a DSL server." and "All Retrosheet's data is proofed and checked against day-by-day and season totals maintained by the Hall of Fame," yet the website itself "makes no guarantee of accuracy". This needs to be resolved, because the article is almost entirely sourced to this site. Is this over-reliance on internet research, and can the article not be cited to better sources ? The other question is why he isn't covered by reliable sources? Is this the standard of referencing we expect in a featured bio? Also, there are strange spaced emdashes throughout the citations; they could be changed to spaced endashes or colons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What sort of reliable source could you have for statistical data? I doubt MLB or organizations like SABR would actually upload logs for every single baseball game ever onto the Internet. Remember, who are the people behind sports organizations like Retrosheet, Baseball-Library, and Baseball-Reference? They're all a bunch of average Joes who are deeply interested in baseball. I don't see how one person can be more reliable than another when all they're doing is recounting numbers, not facts or opinions. Do you have any alternative suggestions? I will fix the dash issues. I think MFC changed all the dashes in the refs a while back from en to em. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I wish I had a solution, but I'm stumped. If it were one or two statements, I wouldn't be so concerned, but I'm not yet convinced it's reliable, yet I'm realizing that almost the entire article relies on this one source. SI says "checked against ... Hall of Fame", but does that statement have any meaning for non-Hall of Famers? If Hall of Fame really had the data, you could get it from them, and it would be reliable, which is why I feel that SI statement appears meaningless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • How about a query at WP:RSN? I've pulled out all of the relevant info about the site in my post above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The Hall of Fame has data for every single baseball game and stats for every single player. Retrosheet just takes the HoF's data and uploads it to the Internet. I wish I could reference the stats to the Hall of Fame, but they have not made their stats available online. I'll see if there's some sort of huge baseball encyclopedia with game logs. Anyway, inquiring at RSN would hopefully resolve this matter. As I mentioned before, Cricinfo was similarly started by an average Joe, who just began compiling statistical data for matches and player careers. Should we bring this site up as well? It's the most common reference in any cricket FA. Dashes fixed now, by the way. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
            • When I've inquired about cricinfo in the past, I recall being given satisfactory answers establishing their reliability (I think that was long ago on a FAR); the problem here is that the SI mention of retrosheet is not convincing, especially considering retrosheet itself says it's not accurate. Dilemma to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Since the Major League Baseball site has a similar disclaimer, why is it presumed accurate?(look for 7C).[6] I'm not giving support at this time, so I could care less. I'm just asking if these disclaimers are common. Giants2008 (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Thanks, Giants2008:[7]

                  7. C. MLBAM DOES NOT WARRANT THAT: (1) THE WEBSITE OR THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; (2) DEFECTS OR ERRORS IN THE WEBSITE, MERCHANDISE OR SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED; (3) THE WEBSITE, THE MERCHANDISE OR THE SERVICES WILL BE FREE FROM VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS; OR (4) ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE WEBSITE, THE MERCHANDISE, OR THE SERVICES WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE.

                  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, using your previous logic, MLB.com shouldn't be considered a reliable source. What do you think? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's something that should be explored in terms of WP:V: specifically the information at WP:SOURCES relative to WP:SPS, including factors like the organization's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, staff, differences between MLB and a self-published hobby site, etc. WP:V is the policy we need to conform with; perhaps you all can find something in there that can help resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For example (when in doubt, go back to the policy :-) google "David W. Smith" retrosheet baseball, by searching through returns there you might find something that will establish him as an expert published by reliable sources, per WP:SELFPUB:
And, going to scholar.google.com, I come up with some book, is that his? (Update, yes, per our article on him, it is.) And, our own article on him, David Smith (baseball historian), gives a lot of links (a New York Times article for example) that might fulfill WP:SPS. By digging through info like this, you might be able to establish that he's a published expert per the criteria at WP:SPS, but somebody has to do the research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has to do the research? Are you referring to the volunteers who helped upload stats? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ack, lost a whole big update to an ec; give me a minute :-) No, I'm suggesting that by researching that info (what you find on google, scholar.google as well as the links in our article on him), you might find that David W. Smith meets the WP:SPS requirements, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think the key is in there; establish that Smith is a published, recognized expert per the wording at WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done some searching for you...
  • WP:SPS, " ... whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". (The first link isn't working for me?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Giants2008 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You want more, you got more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/sports/baseball/16score.html Is the New York Times a good start? In fact, searching for Retrosheet there turns up quite a few articles that use Retrosheet data. The link is long, so I'll spare you.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/cs/896032.html ESPN article using data from Smith. Giants2008 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec, still on the last piece: it's not who mentiones Retrosheet, it's whether they establish Smith as an expert published by reliable third parties. Focus on that.) When combined with the rest, this is a good direction:[8]

In addition to the page-long story in the Scorecard section of Sports Illustrated, Retrosheet has been featured in the two books. Alan Schwarz devotes five pages to the organization in his book The Numbers Game: Baseball’s Lifelong Fascination with Statistics, praising Smith for both taking on the task and making sure the information would be free and accessible to the public. “In the end,” Schwarz wrote, “Retrosheet has become a celebration of baseball built by fans for fans. Their sense of community and love for their favorite sport pulse through every web page.” Smith, originally a consultant to author Jane Leavy, became a part of her book Sandy Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy.

This is the kind of info that should be brought forward on at WP:RSN; anything that establishes him as an expert published by reliable third parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the ESPN source is going the right direction, as it shows a reliable sports org using his data. When Ealdgyth queries reliability of sources, these are the sorts of answers that are needed (not a blurb somewhere praising him as a good guy with a computer in his basement :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm satisfied now with this, but I still think Nishkid64 should compile the most relevant pieces of "supporting evidence" to the WP:RSN thread to be clear and to get outside opinions, since retrosheet may be used in other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the cached version: [9] Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've got more ESPN articles if you want them. Just let me know. Giants2008 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The udel site doesn't thrill me because it's kinda PRish and could be biased; what is of interest in the udel article is that it mentions that Smith's work was covered in two books. We're after, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If ESPN uses him, that's a very good direction, and the kind of info that should be included over at WP:RSN. I'm satisfied now based on what I've seen, but don't want to be one-person judge and jury, since no one else had dug into this before I looked, and when Ealdgyth queries reliable sources, the answers don't always focus on WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes...
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1355292.html Smith teams with an SABR researcher for some data
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1853737 His work is mentioned at least twice here, in the same breath as the official Elias Sports Bureau. Giants2008 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My only problem is that you're relying on a person's expertness to determine whether he can copy numbers down properly from the HoF databanks. I'm only pressing this issue because there are other baseball stat reference sites like Baseball-Reference, The Baseball Cube, Baseball-Library and Baseball Almanac, which might rely solely on the work of non-experts. All of these sites are used in hundreds, if not thousands of baseball articles as sources. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write WP:V, but FAs have to comply with it :-) If those sites don't conform to WP:V, their use in FAs has to be explained, and if they aren't reliable, they shouldn't be used anywhere. But that's beyond the scope of this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
First, I think we should be careful ruling out sites because of reliability disclaimers that exist for legal reasons. That was why I posted the MLB.com page. The other issues are more valid in my view. Second, are both of you under the impression that what you see on Retrosheet comes from the Hall of Fame? They take scorecards from Major League Baseball teams, sportswriters, newspapers, and as a last resort fans, and input them into their computers. The Hall of Fame totals are used to check for errors. At least that's how I understand it. Let me know if you want a page from them on this. Giants2008 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Giants2008 about the disclaimers that are on webpages. Most sites carry those, mainly for legal reasons, so the presence of them shouldn't necessarily mean that the site itself is unreliable. For that matter, most published books carry a similar disclaimer, it's part of the litigious society we live in. When I'm evaluating sources, I generally don't take much notice of them either way. The lack of them actually makes me more leery of a site because in my experience most "home grown" sites don't have legal disclaimers. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That particular source has already been resolved; there's only one questionable source remaining (see the top of the FAR). I hope you're back soon, Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I got lost in the FAC discussion! I'll let you go ahead and hide anything that's resolved. Should be home Wednesday, but tomorrow morning is probably my last chance at reliable internet! Renaissance faire this weekend though! Fun! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This one is resolved, but You Are Needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—no prob with the prose, but (1) the table of scorings is in PUKEY colours. Aargh. Does it pass our "accessibility" policy? (2) The many "Sports Reference" refs—the tables there are appallingly malaligned: is that just my browser? Is it a trustworthy site? TONY (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I am red-green colorblind and had no problems viewing the table. This may be a problem for other editors, though. They're should be a non-color legend though, and I think I'll add that. Sports-Reference is a reliable source in my opinion—it was started in 2001 by a math professor at Saint Joseph's University, who then took it in full swing and even created Sports-Reference, LLC. The tables on there look fine to me...maybe it is your browser? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm reluctant to have the Career Statistics section included in this article at all per [discussion]. Granted, it's been quite a while since that, so I do not know what consensus is on those. Plus I don't see why the colors are needed in that section. My apologies if this has been discussed already, if so let me know. Wizardman 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The colors have since been removed. The stats were taken from MLB.com and Baseball-Reference; I've referenced to both. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I meant the colors in the team section (i.e. HOU still has the brown and black). Not sure if that's necessary. It doesn't realy matter to me though, the article looks good otherwise. Wizardman 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.