Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baseball/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:37, 19 February 2007.

[edit] Baseball

Note on closing - this is a re-promoted WP:FFA.

[edit] Review commentary

Message left at PSzalapski, Neutrality, Project Baseball Jeffpw 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Baseball players. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't fully meet the FA criterias in:

2.c. and 4. Overwhelming table of contents with too much unnecessary details.

Even, at some degree 1.a. It's not so well written and is little bit hard to understand.

1.e. It has too many vandalism reverts. --Hey911 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This looks like a "Brilliant Prose" promotion from 2004. While there are 14 reference books listed, there are only three inline citations. I understand this is a broad topic, but the "See Also" section has more than 30 links. This article will need a lot of help, if it is to keep its Featured status. I tried to find the main contributer in the history, to notify him/her, but am having trouble doing that, as the article has been so extensively edited. Jeffpw 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The level of vandalism is not an actionable objection, see WP:WIAFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs inline citations. LuciferMorgan 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on the vandalism reverts, they are usually always reverted straight after they happen. Baseball is on a lot of users watchlists which helps prevent it staying vandalised for a long period of time. --Borgarde 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Gripe This article is a great example of one of Wikipedia's shortcomings. This article was great back when it was first a featured article. Now it is FUBAR due to a lot of irresponsible edits. I don't think I will participate much in the review. --Locarno 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments Prose size is 60KB, overall size is 156 KB - at least a third of the article needs to go (via WP:SS) before cleaning up the rest. Referencing is a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments This is the longest article I have ever seen.--Superplaya 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been looking at other sports intro articles, and the length is pretty standard, so I'm not as worried about that. However, there is plenty of content here that is expendable. In particular, the strategy sections need to be chopped to the bare minimum and moved to their own article. "Baseball's unique style" is a POV mess. And then there's the complete lack of sources. Djrobgordon 07:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 60 KB of prose is not a standard and not common for an FA. Pls see WP:LENGTH SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As above, there is real trouble with the length and referencing. It needs serious trimming to make it more concise. Trebor 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, issues unaddressed during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove It's way too long with useless things. Parts of it is not well written and it is not the same as other featured articles. Some parts of it is also just bogus and isn't true!Superplaya 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are TOC (2c), unnecessary detail (4), and writing quality (1a). Marskell 12:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove It's way too long with useless things. Parts of it is not well written and it is not the same as other featured articles. Some parts of it is also just bogus and isn't true!Superplaya 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Superplaya, if you feel that some of it is untrue, then fix it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove per issues raised above, primarily 1c. Trebor 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove per above and some 1a issues. — Deckiller 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.