Talk:Jim Bouton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Baseball  Portal Baseball Portal Jim Bouton 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. WikiProject New York Yankees This page is part of the scope of WikiProject New York Yankees, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the New York Yankees. Please feel free to join us. WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

I believe that it's very bad to have the term "Ball Four" redirect to "Jim Bouton". Ball Four is enormously popular and absolutely deserves its own page. TheImpossibleMan 14:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I completely agree, Ball Four the book deserves its own place in history and Bouton his own, while related, these two are not the same thing. - Abisai

  • Here's a thing: Get a good article first, then worry about where it goes. -- GWO

I think this Jim Bouton article deserves a longer treatment of Ball Four, which I will try to provide.

Andrew Szanton 4/06

Not a terrible attempt, but the Ball Four section has some serious problems, most notably its tone; it's written more like a high school book report than an encyclopedia article. Too much opinion, too much non-factual clutter. I'm not even sure where to start, but it needs some serious work. —Cleared as filed. 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, I found that section very readable and it told me exactly what I wanted to know, i.e. what kind of book it is and why it made such a splash at the time. - Mcasey666 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"But Bouton and Shecter found a way to write a non-fiction baseball book that was weirdly and powerfully compelling..."

Sure, it's readable, but the tone is inappropriate. It's not the job of an encyclopedia to tell people that a book was "weirdly and powerfully compelling," whatever that means. Like I said, it sounds more like a high school book report. The article can explain why the book made such a splash without sounding like a cheerleading book review. —Cleared as filed. 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean this up a bit. Hope the tone is more appropriate. - BassPlyr23 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

changed: ...who was renamed David at the boy's own request. to: ...who was renamed David at the boy's request.

"the boy's own request" is a tautology. Raphaelaarchon 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)