Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 15:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead

• If the stats are sourced in the article, they don't need to be sourced in lead/infobox
• Is mentioning that his record was broken the next year necessary (especially in the lead!)
  • Yes, because otherwise, people will think he still holds the record (or those who know better will think the article is wrong)! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would they? It says he gained a record in X year, and you can expand in the body of the article. It seems too much detail for the lead. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:LEDE: "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." If this is not mentioned, those people will erroneously assume Wood still holds the record. I'm not taking this info out of the lead. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• starting a career-high 49 in 1972 - I was confused for a few minutes before realizing it was 49 games. I know it seems obvious, but could the word be added?
• The other way - is it correct to be repeating "pitched" in also pitched a career-high 376+2⁄3 innings pitched ?
  • Probably not incorrect, but I changed first pitched to recorded to make it read better. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• though, as he put it, he was somewhat "gun-shy" upon his return. needs a citation
  • As you said in your first comment, cite unnecessary because it is sourced in the article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Except this is a direct quotation. We have to know where is it coming from. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:LEDE, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." As a result, I added the cite. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wood's 90 wins from 1971–74 were the most in the major leagues. - this reads awkward, could the phrasing be improved?
• Lead might be a little long for the article - the article is quite long, but the lead is also pushing how big they are accepted for the longest of articles, which this is not. It is written in a very narrative style and there are extraneous details and elements of style that could be removed.
  • I don't think it's too long, especially for a long article. Willie Mays, another long GA, is about 100 words longer. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it is. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "You can say 'Well it is' all you want, but I have shown through argument and example that it is not too long. I'm not changing it. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

• Infobox satis
• Only one image in article (PD) besides infobox - feels sparse - are there any more, even related?
  • None of Wood. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, they can be related. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Images aren't required for GAs, but I agree that they look better with them, so I added a couple more. As long as you don't mind them not being of Wood. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

• Two images, both PD
• There is a lot of quotation from the White Sox "Conversation with Wilbur Wood" source. While this is all attributed and in quotation marks, it equals over 75% of the original conversation, which is too much to be directly quoting. As an interview, spoken word is more on-the-fence than written text, but it's still a lot. Is it possible to rephrase some of the quotations in original words?
  • Rephrased some and took others out, so it should be better now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The rest of the earwig copyvio check looks clear.

Early life

• "nee" → "née"
• Since there is unlikely to be confusion in the context, could "Young Wilbur" just be written as "Wood"?
  • I disagree. Last Wilbur mentioned was a different one. Young Wilbur is better to avoid misreading. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous Wilbur mentioned, however - as I said - is not identified as Wood. I didn't suggest replacing "Young Wilbur" with "Wilbur", did I? Kingsif (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. So there are two "Woods" mentioned in the previous sentence, neither of which are this one. I think "Young Wilbur" is necessary to avoid possible misreading. I'm not changing it. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of the Wood boys feels too colloquial, perhaps just "The brothers"?
• would play some sport year round - 1. "year round" → "year-round", 2. I assume this means that throughout the year, depending on the season, they would play different sports? Because "some sport" is a little old-timey news-reporter-y, and "sports" may be more appropriate.
• I think all of the parentheses in the opening paragraph are unnecessary - the sports don't need to be explained (if someone is stuck on what a defenseman is, the wikilink is there) and "his junior year" would fit in plain prose
  • Took the parentheses out for style but left the sports in. I know the positions are linked, but this way, one doesn't need to leave the article to find out what sport it is. Makes it easier to read. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• about 50 colleges wanted the prospect for one sport or another - perhaps explain that Wood is "the prospect", for non-sporting readers (who might stumble upon the article). Also, "one sport or another" is casual and has the same feeling as "some sport" mentioned above - is there another way to phrase this?
• Is the Hemond He was a chubby little guy quotation necessary? I don't think it adds much to the statement that Hemond was unimpressed, but even if you wanted to give the reason, that could be done more succinctly in prose.
  • Yes. It additionally helps describe Wood as well. "He was a chubby little guy" is succinct. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Boston, however, - would this not be "The Red Sox"?
• The Wood quotation about Boston and money needs some contextualizing before launching into it like a regular sentence; at the moment it's not integrated, nor introduced.
  • Redid sentence order; should be clearer now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would think that reportedly from $25,000 to $50,000 should be "between ... and ...", unless the bonus ranged depending on something. I.e. if it was a fixed bonus sitting somewhere in that region but unknown, it should be "between..."
  • My way's more technically correct, because it might have been $25,000 or $50,000 exactly. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

• @Sanfranciscogiants17: Still working but left some replies to you. Kingsif (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fail: nominator refuses to cooperate with review process and has firmly indicated that they will not make edits which, in my understanding of the criteria, are needed to meet GA. In the spirit of this being a review, I will likely add more comments as suggestions for improvement, and indicate which I believe are requirements. But this isn't GA, and with the nominator's attitude, won't be any time soon. A damn shame for something that's been stifling so long. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am perfectly happy to make edits that improve the article. Your suggestions detracted from its quality. Looking forward to getting this looked at by someone who actually understands the GA criteria. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You refuse to improve the lead. Nobody who understands the criteria will pass it. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingsif, Uninvolved editor here who was about to start a new review and wanted to see what the hang-up was in this one ... is your principal complaint really about the length of the lead section? Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article of 30,000+ characters (and this article is at 38,000ish) should have a lede of three to four paragraphs ... I see a lede here of four paragraphs. I can understand a quibble here and there about a detail, but a declaration that "well it is" too long when the MOS simply says something different strikes me as a rather strident, perhaps even unconstructive, conclusion. I'll take this over if you're really going to fail the article over that, but I'd encourage you to perhaps have another look. In my experience, Sanfranciscogiants17 is pretty easy to work with in GA review world, so I am rather disheartened to see this conclusion. Go Phightins! 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Go Phightins!: The lead was the complaint Sanfranciscogiants17 focused on and so I responded about it, but it was not the only one. Their responses to me, indicating at various points that they would simply refuse improvements, were more unconstructive. Now, of course, the lead is important - important enough to get its own criteria. Lots of reviewers do forget how important it is, just check for prose and accept it. But it's the first thing readers see, and while sometimes the only thing they need to bother with, it should be a small reflection of the article. A suitable length - and this article isn't long enough for more than a 3 paragraph lead in practice, if they're going to be long paragraphs as they were here, I promise you - a suitable overview of the article - which was met - but not too detailed - which also was not. I'm not going to put up with a user that has the attitude of a stroppy teenager getting a B (especially after handling recent complaints of other editors 'bullying' reviewers into passing sub-par articles, I don't have the mental strength to deal with the inevitable confrontation of someone who doesn't want to be critiqued), so have at it. Nor do I want to expend the energy going over and over each detail they seem to not understand the reason for needing, i.e. surname use. They value their opinions more than MOS, that seemed evident to me. I warn you not to pass this too easily, for the love of article improvement (what the GA process is, at its heart), and do a proper review - maybe the nominator will not be so kind to you when you do. It wasn't a quickfail, not a full review fail, but a judgement fail because, in the allotted time, this article would not meet criteria based on needing to fight the nominator the whole way. The lead, the last I saw it, was not satisfactory, and there are other points where improvement is required that were already getting pushback, too. Two weeks wouldn't cut it, so I planned to leave a full review for the nominator to look over and decide what to do with in their own time, but got an unpleasant response and saw it renominated in seconds. They don't want feedback, they want a pass. It's not a pass. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingsif, Fair enough. I'll take it over. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]