Talk:Billy Pierce/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Ah, my 75th review :) Here we go!

En dashes needed for numerical ranges, especially the infobox "(1949-1961)" → "(1949–1961)" per WP:DASH
"(3,306⅔). He " – don't use symbols such as here. Change it to "(3,306 2/3). He " or something. Primarily because most editors don't know how to input those symbols, including myself. And it's pretty small to read.
"Pierce, the son of pharmacist" – perhaps a good time to re-mention his first name, as just from the sentence alone it is implied that his last name is Pierce
""Mr. Zero."" → ""Mr. Zero"." – move the punctuation outside of the sentence fragment per WP:PUNC
Is there a ref for "Richards became Chicago's manager in 1951, " to the end of the paragraph?
Ref for "The streak ended when he..."?
Ref for "Pierce was also an excellent baserunner, and ..."?
ref for "His streak of 33 consecutive scoreless innings was ended with an unearned run in the seventh inning on July 1."?
ref for "he was out of action until a 2–1 win over Kansas City on September 7."?
ref for "On June 20, 1961, Pierce broke Ed Walsh's White Sox record of 1,732 career strikeouts."?
ref for "But over the course of the year he proved to be one of the few ..."?
ref for "Pierce posted a career Series ERA of 1.89 in 19 innings."?
ref for "Pierce posted a 211–169 record with a 3.27 ERA in 3,306⅔ innings;..."?
ref for "Pierce's size also belied his durability, as he was one of the few pitchers under 6 feet (1.8 m) in height to lead the league in complete games since the 1920s..."?
ref for the first few paragraphs of "Statistical evaluations"?
"Notes and references" can just be renamed to "References"

Gary King (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for his career record (W-L, ERA) and the statistical evaluations, I'll note that for things such as comparing Pierce to a group of other pitchers, it's simply a comparison of widely available statistics; there's no single specific resource, though I suppose you could just pick a reference work. Fraction symbols (or special characters, such as Greek or Cyrillic letters or various other symbols) can be added using the insert box below the main box when you edit an article; it seems silly to have them available but to say we shouldn't use them in a good article. As for the line about breaking Walsh's record, I'm not sure how we'd reference that (I couldn't find any mention of the record in The Sporting News report of the game); Walsh's White Sox career total is widely available, and based on Pierce's annual totals and his 1961 game logs available at Baseball-Reference and Retrosheet, that's the day he tied and broke the record. MisfitToys (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense; I never use the symbols so I forgot about them. However, any update to issues such as the dashes? Gary King (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but because there has been no response in 7 days regarding the issues raised, I am failing this nomination. Please renominate the article again when the issues have been resolved and it is believed that the article meets the Good article criteria. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page one day ago. I only got around to reviewing the article now. Plus progress was being made on it. Could you reconsider? Wizardman 11:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright re-doing it. The message was left as a quick note, though, as I saw you had made edits since the review and the note; I don't think I've left another one in my past 100 reviews. In the future, it's easiest to watch review subpages before they are created if the article is not watched. "Progress" as in updates to this page because I don't always check the articles themselves for every one of my reviews. I have gladly renominated the article, though, and we can continue from here with the points above. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dashes are fixed; the only problem was the two in the infobox, which I think occurred inadvertently when another editor did some cleanup on it - but all the numerical ranges and year ranges should be fine now. I'll have a look at some of the suggested references (beginning with the Richards note and ending with the complete games item), though I won't get to them until at least tomorrow; everything else you mentioned should be covered already. MisfitToys (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that sounds good. Let me know when you get to the rest of them. Gary King (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've covered most of them (and added a couple more good quotes); I think I can get the last two on Friday. MisfitToys (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've added refs for the baserunning line, and revised the part about his effectiveness in Candlestick; it looks like it would be too difficult (and somewhat beside the point) to try and quantify how his record there compared to those of other pitchers (12-0 kind of speaks for itself, although some other Giants pitchers also had very good records there from 1960 to 1962 - Jack Sanford 28-10, Stu Miller 20-6, Juan Marichal 20-10, Sam Jones 18-8, etc.). I don't think we really need a ref for the heavy winds at Candlestick. Anything else? MisfitToys (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Excellent, everything looks good! Passing Gary King (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]