Talk:Billy Sunday/GA1
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA Sweeps: Kept[edit]
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I reworded multiple sentences to help the article maintain a neutral point of view. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- The technical updates are worthy improvements to the article, but some substantive changes were made without knowledge of the underlying sources. I've reverted these changes, although I'd be happy to discuss them, preferably one by one with reference to the sources.
- In any case, I think the value of ranking articles is exaggerated. A well-written article should stand on its own merit. Gold stars and such are for elementary school.--John Foxe (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Use of terms such as "remarkable", "exceptional", "brilliant", "money-grubbing charlatan", and use of italics to stress a point such as "gainfully employed worker made $836 per year." do not present a neutral point of view on the subject. He may have been a great/horrible baseball player and evangelist, but that is up to the reader to decide based on the facts presented. If words such as these are to be included in the article, the statement needs to be followed by a source, along with quotation marks around the word if somebody said it. For example, money-grubbing charlatan should be in quotation marks if the critic actually wrote/said that. Otherwise it definitely needs to be reworded. I may have altered some of the text, but if it had been a direct quote, then it should have been labeled as such. I had considered getting a community consensus GAR on the article, but figured that I would attempt to remove the POV language myself to prevent having to do that. Regardless of your interpretation of the article classes, if the article is currently labeled as a GA, it must adhere to the GA criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with your analysis. Any noted baseball player has "exceptional" talent, far greater than that of the average person. There's nothing NPOV about that statement. But rather than argue with me about such wording (fully backed, though it is, by documented sources), it would probably be easier for you to begin the necessary steps to remove the article from GA status or at least to ask for community consensus.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's just one instance, and of the ones I listed, that use may be considered to be NPOV, but I'd question the others. I'll start a community consensus GAR to better guage the current status of the article. I'll provide a link here once I've formatted everything. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- The GAR can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Billy Sunday/1. Please consider leaving comments to help further improve the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with your analysis. Any noted baseball player has "exceptional" talent, far greater than that of the average person. There's nothing NPOV about that statement. But rather than argue with me about such wording (fully backed, though it is, by documented sources), it would probably be easier for you to begin the necessary steps to remove the article from GA status or at least to ask for community consensus.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Use of terms such as "remarkable", "exceptional", "brilliant", "money-grubbing charlatan", and use of italics to stress a point such as "gainfully employed worker made $836 per year." do not present a neutral point of view on the subject. He may have been a great/horrible baseball player and evangelist, but that is up to the reader to decide based on the facts presented. If words such as these are to be included in the article, the statement needs to be followed by a source, along with quotation marks around the word if somebody said it. For example, money-grubbing charlatan should be in quotation marks if the critic actually wrote/said that. Otherwise it definitely needs to be reworded. I may have altered some of the text, but if it had been a direct quote, then it should have been labeled as such. I had considered getting a community consensus GAR on the article, but figured that I would attempt to remove the POV language myself to prevent having to do that. Regardless of your interpretation of the article classes, if the article is currently labeled as a GA, it must adhere to the GA criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)