Talk:Michael Barrett (baseball)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Barrett (baseball) article.
Article policies
Good article Michael Barrett (baseball) 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.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comment

I guess this is alright but this article focuses on his fights a lot. He is known for that but it does seem a bit much. Marcus Taylor 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on adding some more stuff in about his actual playing career --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I'll try to help out. Marcus Taylor 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added a lot more stuff that deals with Barrett's playing career, youth, and personal life. I've also found some pictures on Flickr. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  19:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Great work! Marcus Taylor 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold 6/07

Honestly, I would fail this article were it not my first WP:GAC review. I am going to give you a 7 day reprieve to improve the article, but its breadth is a challenge. You must have proportionate coverage of his career between the lines given the amount of time spent on controversies. The article is very deficient in terms of breadth of coverage and clarity of description of his professional career. This is negligent given the mlb citation.

  • The WP:LEAD is alarmingly short for a WP:GAC of this length. Among the things that should be included in the lead to summarize the article are
    • Shortstop-catcher conversion.
    • Third base play.
    • You may want to add excellence in lower minors (at least two all-star games)
  • The article should mention his third base play in more detail than the lead.
  • In fact, his versatile positional experience should be expounded upon.
  • When was he converted to shortstop (see your second citation)? The professional career seems jumbled based on the various years of your second citation.
  • Is there a story behind the Number change? It is in your first citation and not mentioned in the article.
  • I dislike the Early life section. Can you expand?
  • Also, acknowledge all minor league all-star selections and name as many teams, leagues and tenures as you have at your fingertips. Link as many teams and leagues as possible including Eastern League.
  • Are the Expos defunct or relocated?
  • I would hope the text of the professional career would be at least 2 or 3 teams as lengthy as that of his controversies. See some of the above.
  • See WP:DATE for date formatting
  • Incorporate hit by pitch into Oswalt confrontation section.
  • Explain the two sequential trades better.
  • Use a wikilink for the first time you use any term from Category:Baseball_statistics
  • Add a full career statistics section. (See Chris Young) TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious tag talk page explanation

One of what was your first two citations (not sure if still) said he has played 1B, SS, 3B, C and debuted at 3B. Get that in the article correctly and cited. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed 6/07

I had hoped to be able to say we have gone from an article that should have been failed to a legitimate hold by the time I got to reviewing the article a second time, but I can not. I apologize for my inexperience as a GA reviewer. I take a large part of the blame for this failure for my inability to give good direction and hope that if you continue to work on this page you pursue WP:PR, WP:BIOPR and subsequent reevaluation at WP:GAC. Here is my review followed by extensive suggestion for continued improvement.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


The article remains incomplete, disorganized and leaves the reader curious about as many questions as it answers:

Both references cite a controversy with Rich Hill (baseball). The article does not explain this controversy.
At times it vaguely refers to facts when details are appropriate:
Which All American Teams?
Which All Star Teams?
When did he become an everyday catcher?
How much did he play the various posiitons?
Professional career section is still short compared to Controversies section.
Inaccurate:
"Barrett posted pedestrian numbers during his rookie season" belies http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player_career.jsp?player_id=136664&y=1999 which says "led all N.L. rookies with 32 doubles ... also ranked among rookie leaders in hits (sixth), extra-base hits (third), RBI (eighth), runs (eighth) and multihit games (sixth)"
"his inconsistent defensive play prompted the Expos to send him back to the Minors for portions of the 2000 season" belies http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player_career.jsp?player_id=136664&y=2000 which says "hit .214 in 89 games"
Only link first appearance of words such as runs, hits, catcher, etc. and don't link extra words such as "batted in fifty-two"
Give a brief summary of the game result in each controversy. E.g. "The Cubs won the game in which Barrett went 1-4 with two RBI."
Provide a box score link to each specific game you reference, especially MLB debut. All of Barrett's games are available online. Again, see Chris Young to see how this can be done.
Although it is not always done, you may want to caption the main image like Chris Young.
"short stop" "stand out" are one word.
Capitalization such as Minors, Majors, & All-Star Catcher.
Citations follow punctuation including commas. Move proper citation to follow "Considered to be one of the top prospects that year," which by the way is a poorly structured sentence. The comma needs to be followed by the word Barrett because it modifies Barrett and not the Montreal Expos.
Writing is poor. Here are numerous incorrectly structured sentences
"after struggling to remain healthy in 2003," should be followed by the word Barrett which it is intended to modify
"his tenure with the Delmarva Shorebirds, in which Barrett" s/b either "for whom Barrett" or "his Delmarva Shorebirds tenure" for proper modification
"He was then traded to Chicago Cubs on the following day, in exchange for Damian Miller and an undisclosed amount of money." comma does not denote parenthetical thought correctly here Either eliminate comma, set off in parenthesis or use proper type of WP:DASH.
"Despite starting the 2006 season on a positive note, by representing the Unites States at the World Baseball Classic, Barrett's productivity was marred by suspension after a fight with A.J. Pierzynski and later a season-ending injury." seems incorrectly structured.
"Barrett then got up and punched him, prompting Scott Podsednik to come help subdue Barrett." s/b either "which prompted" or "got up and delivered a punch"
"another fight ensued within the Cubs’ clubhouse, ultimately ending with Zambrano punching Barrett’s lip" needs to be revised.
Personal life section has two sentences that use two ands that need to be restructured for clarity.
", and" construction with dependent/independant phrases
"He returned to the Majors in the following season, and had" s/b either "season and had" or "season, and he had"
"Player of the Year, and was named to many All American Teams." s/b either "Year and was" or "Year, and he was"
"He spent a month playing with the Ottawa Lynx of the International League, and eventually made his return" s/b either "League and eventually" or "League, and he eventually"
"The Cubs officially confirmed these details in the afternoon, and revealed that Barrett in exchange for Rob Bowen and Kyler Burke."
"Barrett began to mouth off to Oswalt, and eventually confronted him"

Best of luck on continued improvement of this article. I hope to see this pass my WikiProject Chicago desk as a GA in the future. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd GA nom

The article has come a long way. Good luck.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I will be reviewing this article for Good Article status. Good news is that so far it passes the Quick Fail criteria, so a few review is forthcoming. Check back later in the day. FamicomJL 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Looks great. The only thing I would suggest to improve on is fixing the rationales, there is a table you can use to get them to look correct. Other than that, no problems at all, this is a very well done article. Congrats to all who worked hard on it! FamicomJL 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA problems

This article currently doesn't pass the Good article criteria. There are many instances where the Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves and Wikipedia:Words to avoid are present. Both problems need to be fixed for the article to keep its current listing. I'll allow several days for comments and addressing these concerns before delisting.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any examples in particular? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Words like distinguished and success in the introduction. Words like however and despite are throughout the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to fix the issue - I think I got most of it. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There's still some facts speak for themselves issues. There is a lot of times where the article says "struggled" and "productivity." Both a fairly subjective terms. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)