The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:03, 27 July 2011 [1].

Derek Jeter[edit]

Derek Jeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In honor of Derek Jeter joining the 3,000 hit club this weekend, I am nominating this article for FA. Jeter is one of the highest profile baseball players in the history of the game, what with his playing in the largest media market for the most polarizing team, and of course all of the advances in video and social media that have occurred prior to and during his career. This article is well-written, stable, and deserves its recognition. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All other stat related sentences are verified by Baseball Reference, FanGraphs, MLB.com and other reliable source external links, but :*The Baseball Cube and FanGraphs are highly reputable sites for baseball statistics, awards, and other information. I believe Baseball Almanac is also reputable, but I should double check. The Baseball Almanac source has been removed as it is only used once, and a better source exists there. I know less about TV.com, but I think it's okay. I was wrong about TV.com, I thought it was something else. It's a bad source and it has been removed. Hollywood Rag is a gossip site I know nothing about, but it demonstrates that Jeter is common tabloid gossip fodder with his relationships. Hollywood Rag is removed in favor of better sources. Any other input on these sources is welcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date format is now consistent. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I get an example of how publishers are listed for an online newspaper article? The publisher and the work/newspaper would be the same, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: File:Jeter Gets a Hit2.jpg could do with some more information. Other than that, everything checks out. Some of them are great photos. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" is out of control (most relevant info should be worked into the text), MOS review and prose tightening will be needed. I left some samples, but there are numerous MOS and prose issues.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of the specific points you made with the hidden comments and that above example are fixed. I'll give the prose another close read tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

BUC (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Oppose: Really sorry to do this, because a lot of work has obviously gone into this article. To echo the comments of Giants above, there are many prose issues. The text is repetitive, with lots of sentences beginning "Jeter", "He", or "In XXXX". This is particularly notable in the career summaries. I also notice the proseline mentioned above which makes it hard going to read in places. There is also very little flow; for example, "Jeter was inspired to play baseball by Hall of Famer Dave Winfield.[14] In high school, Jeter was a star baseball player at Kalamazoo Central High School, where he also played basketball, earning an All-State honorable mention.": these two sentences have no connection. Another example: "Newhouser felt so strongly about Jeter's potential that he quit his job after the Astros passed on him.[18] Jeter was drafted by the New York Yankees with the sixth overall pick, and he chose to turn professional." These two sentences are obviously connected but there is nothing to smooth the flow between them, such as "Instead, Jeter was...". In addition, there are many short paragraphs which look like mere recitations of statistics. There are also instances of jargon/journalese and ambiguities in the language. This is a list of some issues I noticed down to the start of the "Major League Baseball" section, but they are examples only. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been beaten to the punch on this point, but I find it worth re-noting. After just reading the lead I found it to be very time-sensitive and likely to get quickly dated (a lot of stuff that would require "as of" modifiers. Instead of focusing on his progress through his career, noting some off the field stuff, it was mostly a few paragraphs of his accomplishments, many of which could be dated. The lead alone needs a rewrite to make it a summary of the player rather than his records and accomplishments. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will get on these comments by Sarastro1 and Wizardman today. I hope to see if I can switch that Oppose to a Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Archived? Closed? Are you serious? There is no time limit on FA nomination that I've ever seen, and I've been working on this page today. This is still active as far as I'm concerned. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a little context to the section on the controversy over Jeter's fielding. If it were up to me it would be expanded further but that is probably because I am a stat head who needs to get a life. However, there is a conflict between this section and the lead. The lead says: "Jeter's clubhouse presence, on-field leadership, hitting ability, defensive prowess and baserunning have made him a central figure of the franchise during the Yankees' success of the 1990s and 2000s." However, as the section on his defense indicates many experts believe that Jeter contributed to the Yankees success in spite of his defensive limitations, rather than because of his defensive prowess. I realize you are following the source you cite, but given the long running controversy over Jeter's fielding range I think you have to at least add a qualifier following that sentence to reflect the fact that other sources disagree about his defensive contribution. This might not be a bad thing, since the debate over his defense has become prominent enough to merit a mention in the lead anyway, and that would also serve to make the tone of the lead a little less hagiographic, which is currently a bit of a problem. Incidentally, I agree this closure was ridiculously premature. This article is not that far away from FAC quality.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, that defensiveness thing is a discrepancy. I added it to the lead this morning. It's backed up by the source, but I was questioning it myself and thinking about rewriting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More