Talk:Rickey Henderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Contents

[edit] Good article

This article is a good article, as compared with many WP articles. However, the reviewers don't think so — it has failed GA review three times. The good article review page lists all the good article critiques. Please go there if you want to help improve this article. Timneu22 (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This has now been peer-reviewed, and thoughtfully edited by many. GA Nominating again... Timneu22 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Intro

Systematically listing all nine teams Henderson played for is ponderous, considering it follows "in a 25-year career with nine clubs" from the opening paragraph, since about a third of the franchises are in the "he played there?" category, and especially since the full list of teams is available in the infobox immediately to the right. If there's a Wikipedia consensus to begin articles by citing all teams for all athletes, okay, but otherwise it expands the intro with little payoff.

The "...in four different decades" achievement is interesting, but esoteric. The "most before age 30/after age 30" tidbit would be a less trivial SB factoid, although both are better suited to the body of the stolen base sections.

Let me know if/how you disagree. Also, the "unintentional walks" total was way off. 208.120.6.206 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is almost always overlap between info listed in the info box and in the lead in every article on wikipedia. I checked a few other baseball players, and each of them list the teams they have played for in the introduction. The stolen bases in four decades fact speaks in part to the longevity of Henderson's career. In order for the lead to meet GA introduction requirements, it is going to need to be at least as long as it was before your last revision. You can adjust what is mentioned in the lead and how it is mentioned. You can work with it if you like. The lead could use some more information pulling from every section of the article, but until that introduction is achieved, the introduction better meets style guidelines (concerning paragraph length) and WP:lead guidelines the way the introduction was before your last revision.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the intro to previous. I believe it gives this article the best chance for GA. Timneu22 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The straight reversion restored an error of fact (Henderson's intentional walks total, which had been fixed). I cut the mentions of teams that Henderson played fewer than 100 games for. I hope that my current edit will be closer to everyone's liking. 208.120.6.206 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks real good. Timneu22 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Olerud Anecdote

I am removing the anecdote about Rickey commenting on Olerud's batting helmet worn in the field. Snopes.com lists this story as a false rumour. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A major recently noted problem

I just noticed that there are blogs (blogspot) and comment boards (snopes.com) referenced. These sources are are not WP:verifiable. We need to find alternatives.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Don't you think perhaps his 297 homeruns is more noteworth than his 279 career batting average for the infobox--UhOhFeeling (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough call. I'm not sure that either are really important. Rickey is all about steals and runs. Timneu22 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
True he is all about steals and runs, perhaps we should have runs their instead then. I just think .279 average doesn't really elucidate what a great player he was.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] GA Fail

Apologies for not simply putting this article on hold, but I feel as though the problems here are substantive and will likely take more than a few days.

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:

As you can see, most of the problems exist in the prose. The main problem, and the most glaring is the often unobjective and unencyclopedic tone. To bullet points:

  • The first paragraph, and really the whole lead, spells this POV out. The lead should establish the entire topic, not be a run down of everything great Henderson ever did.
    The lead was said to be "too short." So we expanded it. Now it's a run-down of everthing? There is no consistency in the GA reviewers. What are the GA standards for this? Timneu22 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Shortness was a major problem and we did good to fix that. I tried to guide the intro to improvement, and despite the reviewers concerns, the intro and the whole article have really improved. I'm sorry I didn't catch more of these issues and I'll try to help, so don't give up.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the guideline for it comes from WP:LEAD. While users can interrupt it differently, I guess, to quote it:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." I think it does a good job of establishing notability, and giving context. But I'm not sure if it totally explains controversy or could stand alone as its own article. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a good example of how you want the lead to look would be Lee Smith (baseball). While he also had a great career, it does not go straight to the achievements or the numbers. It summarizes who he played for and when, says why he is notable, and then gives a short overview of his career is two good, solid paragraphs. Your current length is fine, but the coverage could be improved. SorryGuy  Talk  17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't contest your assessment of the lead at all. I just think that despite the current leads limitations, it is actually an improvement from what was there before.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the history, you are probably right. I do like the current version though. It could probably still use some work, but it is a far more neutral, general overview of the topic. SorryGuy  Talk  16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The current revision is the best yet. I agree with 208 — it's not notable to put Oakland High School in the lead. The quote from Bill James is a powerful thing and gives instant credibility. It definitely belongs in the intro. Timneu22 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reference on birth place would be nice.
    It is referenced, his autobiography.
    I was referring to the born in a car part, and if it is reference, then a reference at the full stop after it would suffice. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Updated the reference. However, the webpage that is referenced says "57 Chevy", while the autobiography says an Oldsmobile. Oh well. It was in a car, for sure. Timneu22 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reference on Chase and Jones would be nice.
    I'd like to remove that altogether Timneu22 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Besides those, referencing in the play section is solid.
  • However, the problem is things like "sweetheart", "little more than", "astonishing", "shattered", "remarkably", "aged well", and "incredibly" are all POV. Those are only some examples, many more exist to the point where the article is obviously done by Henderson fans. Having his autograph and having seen his 3,000th hit in person, I can understand it, but the article needs to present a neutral view of his career.
    Changed most of these. "High school sweetheart" is from his autobiography and referenced as such.Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see this reference on the statement yet. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Everything after his career history needs to be compacted some. Perhaps what is now Stolen base king could become a Legacy section, which will be inevitable. Career milestones seems somewhat repetitive as well.
    Moved some stuff around... Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The illeism section needs to be more clear, it never even links illeism. I also don't think it reflects the criticism that Henderson faced at time or how some felt he was a narcissist.
    People felt he was a narcissist?[citation needed] Timneu22 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but a quick search does not reveal such in a reliable source. If you can find such, please do. I would say there was some criticism, or at least mocking that came from it. SorryGuy  Talk  18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The image tags could all use some work, several are out dated.
    Has never been a concern of previous GA readers. Frankly, the images are free and they should be kept. It's hard to find non-copyrighted stuff. Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • References should come at the end of full-stops.
    Please provide reference errors. Timneu22 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    First sentence of the lead, another on first sentence of early life, one about the run record coming off a home run. 28 should be off the period, not on it. SorryGuy  Talk  18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Some the linking on dating is wrong. In the case of years by themselves, they should not be linked. For further information see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
    They are typically linked to "year in baseball". Is this incorrect? Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Honestly, I didn't notice that and do not know if it is correct. SorryGuy  Talk  18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is all I have for now. Best of luck with this article in the future, SorryGuy  Talk  04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I GIVE UP. Timneu22 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)