Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tim Lincecum/1
Tim Lincecum[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • most recent GAN review
- Result: Keep Consensus is the article was brought to GAR without substantial problems and during the reassessment no other problems have come to light. Szzuk (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this fails to completely cover the subject. It doesn't mention his personal life. His interactions with cannabis deserve a lot of coverage. Currently it's not covered at all. This seems to be an old GA that's lurking around. --Iankap99 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The review was in August 2007. I see that you have not commented at the article talk page. That would normally the be the best step. Or you could work on expanding the article yourself. Personal life information should only be there if it is relevant to his career and it needs to be cited to verifiable and reliable sources. Any information needs to follow our WP:BLP policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is false, his whole life should be covered, not just his career. Frank Sinatra's page certainly has more information than just his career. He faced misdemeanor charges, I'd say that's relevant and deserves a lot of coverage. It affected his life and he ended up getting very involved in the politics of California cannabis legalization. The prose is far to short and doesn't cover enough of his personal life to warrant GA status.--Iankap99 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- What is false? That information needs to be "cited to verifiable and reliable sources"? Have you notified the nominator of the article? Have you attempted to contact those who have edited the artcile? Have you considered working on the article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is false, his whole life should be covered, not just his career. Frank Sinatra's page certainly has more information than just his career. He faced misdemeanor charges, I'd say that's relevant and deserves a lot of coverage. It affected his life and he ended up getting very involved in the politics of California cannabis legalization. The prose is far to short and doesn't cover enough of his personal life to warrant GA status.--Iankap99 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article mentions him being cited for possession of cannabis. If this was the extent of the offense then this brief mention is about right. A search of Google news did not turn up anything else [1]. In fact drawing undue weight to a controversy, by giving it "a lot of coverage", in a biography would be a more justifiable reason to delist. A few references could be formatted better, the inline external link should go, a few more references would be nice (for example, the last paragraph in 2010 and his accomplishments), but other than that it is in not too bad a knick for an old GA. AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball AIRcorn (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing where more would need to be added in on the cannabis issue; it reads fine as is, and adding more would actually be a problem. Personal info is sorted throughout the article, so I'm not really seeing any major problems here if that's all there was. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep I beleive the issue about his cannibis use is sufficiently covered and there is nothing else that currently makes me beleive this needs to be delisted AIRcorn (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)