Talk:Walter O'Malley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Good article Walter O'Malley 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.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
TonyTheTiger
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.


[edit] Failed GA

The main reason I failed this is because it's too short. I'm not an expert in the subject, so I don't know exactly how it can be expanded, but it needs to be made longer. Especially the death section. Hanuab 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GA Review #2

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t meet the requirements for GA status at this time. Here are some comments about what this article does and doesn’t do well, and suggestions to improve it.

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:
  • the article lacks broad coverage of O’Malley’s life; a.k.a. there’s not as much information as there should be if it were to be GA status. He’s an importance person in baseball history, so one idea is to see if you can look at any books about him…who knows, maybe your local library might even have one.
  • the picture of O’Malley used in the infobox in fantastic, and adds a lot to the article. Better yet, with it being under a free license, there won’t be any issues over it as the article works its way up to FA status.
  • I was disappointed you don’t really get a sense of O’Malley character's or personality when reading the article; maybe by adding quotes about him from other people, or even quotes from him, the reader could get a better sense of what he was like
  • As you add more information to address the article’s lack of breadth, I would expand the introduction to a second paragraph that incorporates highlights of his time with Dodgers.
  • One of the criteria for GA status is that the article has to be well written; the reason I don’t believe it currently meets this can be seen in the paragraph about his educational background. Three consecutive sentences start with the phrase “He then…”, which is repetitive, reflecting poorly on the prose overall. Try to mix up the sentence more...for example, something like, “O’Malley originaly enrolled at Columbia University….”YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Another example of poor prose; the first sentence of paragraph #3 in the Dodgers section; please make a better transition between stating O'Malley's success and listing the Dodger's pennants
  • the continuity of the article is good; definitely keep continuity in mind as more info is added to the article
  • I don’t understand why the paragraph about the St. Louis Cardinals cartoon is included in this article; while O’Malley is in the cartoon, it's not really about him, and it’s not referenced either. It’s very detailed; the kind of detail that would be great for the body of the article, but doesn’t mean much in the Pop Culture section
  • the Timeline isn’t in sync with the article; the body of the article says his wife died after he first went to the Mayo Clinic, yet in the timeline his treatment there is listed after her death
  • I’m unsure about the necessity of the timeline; I could see how to some editors, the timeline here is nothing more than list that repeats facts already in the body of the text. Personally, I think it’s a useful way of organizing the events in his life, and a quick reference to boot. As such, it wouldn’t hurt to clean it up; you could include specific dates, like what day the Dodgers actually won the series in ’55, and remove entries that are too general and don’t directly involve O’Malley, such as the entry about the stock market. For now, I recommend keeping the Timeline section in.
  • There needs to be a period after the last sentence in the Pop Culture about the HBO documentary…in general, it would be helpful to go over the article and making the wording flow better, and weeding out little errors like thisYesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, the prose could be improved by simply moving the mention of his wife’s death after the sentence about his heart failure and burial.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the thoroughness of how the references are formatted; it’s rare to see someone taking the time to fill out the quote part of the cite news template. That said, it might be possible to trim down some of the quotes a little, and list the author of the articles currently used (if possible)
  • do you happen to know what his degree from the University of Pennsylvania was (not essential to the article; I’m just curious)

Even though the article didn’t pass it’s GA nomination, I hope I’ve been able to provide helpful suggestions to point the article in the right direction; I can imagine that the frustration that would arise from a review that was so quick to dismiss the article. While the article still needs a good deal of work, it’s well on it’s way to obtaining GA status. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future. Monowi (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. But some issues, see below.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass.
3. Broad in coverage?: Some issues, see below.
4. Neutral point of view?: Some WP:UNDUE issues though, see below.
5. Article stability? Pass.
6. Images?: Pass.


The article, including the lead, needs to address more the move to LA and all the emotions and sense of betrayal and sense of changing the course of baseball. One sports column I found at near random, here, captures it better than this article, for example. Additional comments:

  • Relationship with Branch Rickey needs more development.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Other than the move, what new baseball practices did O'Malley institute, if any?
    • Attempted to clarify the importance of the move in the bigger picture and his personal business practices (stability).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why did Brooklyn attendance decline? What did O'Malley try to do to improve it?
  • A "Legacy" section at the end, tracing the importance of the move west, would be useful.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Popular culture" section at the end seems to get WP:UNDUE in length compared to the rest of the article. Moreover, there must have been pop culture references that villified him after the move in New York.
    • The article has more heft so that should address the balance issue here and I refer to the villification in the article now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The wrong dash is used in many places; the em-dash (wider) one is necessary.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Further comments:

  • The lead section has been beefed up, but needs some work. The whole "when the St. Louis Cardinals were the southernmost and westernmost team in the National League and the Kansas City Athletics were the Westernmost team in Major League Baseball" bit is too complicated for the first paragraph of the article; just say "at a time when no team was west of Missouri".YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead section should mention O'Malley forever being villified in Brooklyn.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The added material on the feud with Branch Rickey is good ... but what was the reason for the feud? Philosophical differences? Power struggle? Jealousy over Rickey's fame? Article never says.
    • I am working from pages 166-168 at google books but 167 is not available online.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If you twist and turn the search terms, change the browser, change the computer, etc. you can usually get Google Books to show you any page you like of a "limited preview" book. But after a while it gets so annoying that it's better to go the library and just read it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have done what I can. I have also contacted my co-author who is a great researcher and hope he comes through with some details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Still no explanation for why Brooklyn had an attendance decline, and if O'Malley did anything about it other than discuss a new stadium.
    • I've got nothing. I am at the mercy of other wikipedians, especially my co-author to find any more information on this topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Prose has gotten very choppy — too many short sentences lacking smooth transition. Also some obvious copyediting problems, such as sentences ending without periods, capitalization blunders, unnecessary acronym introductions, etc. I'll make a copyediting run through the article if you want.
    • As far as the acronym I removed J.D. and am not sure if you were referring to others as well. I saw no missing periods or capitalization blunders. However, I made some sentence structure corrections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I did make a copyediting run a while back. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But definite improvement from the last go-around. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)