Talk:Joc Pederson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images[edit]

Great to have the two new images. Well done. But can they be fixed (i.e., via fixing the exposure or contrast)? They seem unduly gray, especially for an infobox photo -- given that we have an older, but much better, one now moved to the body of the article. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take the photos, Tony did. I like the new one better cause you can see his face better, even though its a bit darker. If you want to download it and mess with the contrast, go right ahead.Spanneraol (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My facepalm moment: not remembering until five months later that I'd been able to make some pictures of a handful of players before batting practice ended on 20 May 2015. Much better shot of his face, I think. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 20:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish heritage[edit]

Anyone who wishes to be proud of his or her heritage should indeed be; Wikipedia, meantime, can and should include details of heritage. That noted, there's the matter of WP:UNDUE, which required that the passage be trimmed and its additional details relegated to a footnote. (The whole point of the sentence is that Pederson is eligible to play for the Israeli team by virtue of his heritage; anything else in the main body is unencyclopedic, especially given his stated lack of a religious identity.) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joc has Israali citizenship so I changed American to American-Israeli but someone corrected it even though it is true. 73.7.174.87 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because you didn't cite a reliable published source for that claim. BilCat (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix?[edit]

I can't figure out how to fix this. Can someone else help? Thanks.

The bottom of the page now says in red:

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). templates on this page, but the references will not show without a

template or

template (see the help page).

--2604:2000:E010:1100:29D7:CBBE:DC24:7E18 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joc Pederson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 17:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Review[edit]

  • There seems to be more citations that might be needed in several places
  • The early life section seems to really be about his Jewish identity which is not the place I'd look for that.
  • It also seems to cover his family history to a great extent than his actual early life. It could be renamed to that but we might not need information about his grandparents, for instance.
  • The Devontae Adams fact needs a citation.
  • So does his playing for the Waves.
  • A general note that I do not find the prose to be up to GA standard. Sentences are confusing and also use prosaic sentence structures. It also assumes a fair amount of baseball specific knowledge we can't expect the average reader to have. It doesn't read nearly as well as Randy Tomlin to compare it to a GA of yours. I'll note some specifics as we go but I'd ask you to do a comprehensive pass of the article with this idea in mind.
    • The sentences should mostly be grammatically correct (though looking through it now, it appears that some other user may have undone some of my work). I know a lot of baseball terms are used in the article, but these should mostly be linked on first mention. Thus, even though the uninitiated reader might not be familiar with what they mean, they can click on them to find out what they mean. Evaluating a player's performance through statistics is a more objective manner of evaluating his performance than saying "Pederson had a great game" or stuff like that. Happy to correct any problems or unclear sentences, though. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was given a $600,000 signing bonus, the second-highest bonus of any Dodger selection in the draft and four times the amount recommended for draft picks later than the fifth round. Needs to be clarified that singing bonus was for that draft. Clarity needed, in some fashion, about what a recommended amount means.
  • He also finished second in stolen bases (24) and on-base percentage, and third in runs (54) and walks (36) while playing 68 games. Three ands in 1 sentence
  • The style of mentioning the numbers in the sentence as in his A ball paragraph, rather than in parenthesis as in his rookie league paragraph, is probably the right one.
  • It's misleading to link to Branch Rickey Award which he didn't win
  • Just what is the right amount to note where he was ranked in various prospect rankings? I'm genuinely torn and am curious what you think. I also think that saying where he ranked as a prospect in the league and org is probably too much. I'd focus on the org (and/or MILB as a whole where applicable)
    • This is left over from a former contributor, but I personally think the organization or MILB as a whole are both better than the league, since the leagues don't even include all the prospects at that level. Based on your recommendation (which I agree with), I shall remove the individual league rankings. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • he became the second minor leaguer to hit 20 home runs and steal 20 bases in 2014 feels like a bit of puffery in terms of being the second minor leaguer
  • I don't know this minor league 30/30 needs a whole paragraph
  • took Rafael Soriano to a 3–2 count but was called out on strikes to end the game might not be clear to a non-fan. Perhaps something more like to a full count but struckout to end the game will help without diminishing the writing quality?
    • It should say called out on strikes (as opposed to struck out swinging), but I linked to strikeout so a non-fan can figure out what that means. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing this will be fine but I will point out that in most circumstances whether it s a K or backwards K doesn't matter to an encyclopedia reader. Big Casey this is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now in 2015 I feel we get to the part I struggle with for all contemporary baseball articles. The fact that we were writing as events were happening becomes clear. For instance do we need to know that the team planned to start him during the off season? I would argue not, though that he beat out Ethier does seem relevant.
  • Noting instance of the prospect question from above again.
  • We then get two paragraphs of factoids for the 2015 career. Some of these are interesting, I grant you, but we're covering Pederson's rookie season in basically the same depth as the first three year's of Jim Thome's career (comparing to Thome because his is a WP:FA) and without nearly the cohesive narrative that we get at Thome.
    • This is where my hatred of the Dodgers comes in handy. I'm more than happy to cut it down to size, heheh! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2016, it's not apparent to me that all the homers mentioned the first paragraph are even interesting factoids let alone necessary coverage.
    • Two-homer games aren't that common for MLB players, nor are four-RBI games. Those are probably his season highlights. I might not include all that for someone with a 23-year career, but for someone who's only played for seven years, it's worth mentioning. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems worth noting that he had 3 multihomer games rather than listing each one specifically. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pederson had a painful RBI painful to Pederson or in the context of the game?
  • Not clear that we need all the 2016 playoff highlights to adequately summarize his postseason prowess.
    • I think they should stay in. The postseason is the most important part of the year; if any highlights are going to be mentioned, these are the ones that should be. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2017 section could use some sort of opening.
      • I mean I think I'm in favor, absent a milestone game for Pederson or a Scotter Gennett hitting 4 homers in a game type situation, in favor of not calling out individual game highlights in an encyclopedia. Like if we look at Britannica, they don't mention any single games of Mike Trout. They do mention single games for Ruth (called homerun) and Koufax (sitting out WS) which feels more akin to the Gennett type accomplishment than what we have here. To again refer to Thome I see just a few games, across his entire career, mentioned. Obviously we go in more depth than Britannica so a few games do seem appropriate across his career rather than per season. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid we'll have to disagree in this area. Bios I see of baseball players usually do have highlights in them. There's a problem with the examples you cite--Ruth and Thome both played for over 20 seasons. Even Koufax had a significantly longer career than Pederson. So we can't go as in depth with those players for an article summarizing their career. Pederson has only played for six years, however, which gives us much more space to go in-depth with him. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • when González went on the disabled list not clear that this is needed
    • It should stay in. Shows why he came back. Sometimes, teams are reluctant to activate players if the roster is too full. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The demotion to the Minor leagues is one of the better parts as it's not just "baseball thing" but gives an interesting quote to put it in perspective and context.
  • Would mention who Corey Seager is again when we get to the 2017 playoffs (or just omit who he was replacing altogether)
  • Again noting the run of "here's a baseball thing that happened" that dominates the second half of the 2017 playoff paragraph
  • Could we vary the word choice so the first sentence of two consecutive sentences isn't about avoiding arbitration?
  • For 2019 and 2020 it feels like there's no overall context. I get the season splits, sure, but not a sense of what that meant for Pederson or the Dodgers.
    • Added some stuff about his platooning with Chris Taylor in 2019, noted that a reporter called 2019 a career year for him, and emphasized that the 2020 season was shortened. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relatedly, Pederson is known for the extra platooning the Dodgers did with him (the fact that he's going to play everyday for the Cubs seems to have been a motivation for signing with the Cubs). This seems buried relative to how Peterson is talked about in terms of DUE coverage.
    • His platooning is mentioned at multiple points throughout the article. We don't know that he's going to be an everyday player with the Cubs; even if that's intended, it may not last. If, once the signing becomes official, he or a reporter has a quote about him picking the Cubs because he's expected to get more playing time, then I'll add that in then. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles on Pederson's signing haven't said anything about him picking the Cubs because he wants more regular playing time. Therefore, though it's probably true, I don't think we should put that in. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Joctober quote is a good one.
  • Do we need a game by game description of how he did?
    • As I said earlier, playoff games are the most important parts of a ballplayer's career. This doesn't go into detail on every playoff game he was in, merely the ones which were notable for him. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason the last section isn't just called personal life?
  • The image is copyright OK. There are several other pics of Pederson on Commons that feel like high enough quality that they could also be used to illustrate this article.
    • Added another, but I don't want to put many more in because then the article would get too crowded. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While being cognizant of WP:GACR #4, I don't think this article should pass until we're able to note his signing with the Cubs.
  • Looking at the LEAD, it feels like some information in the first paragraph could be reorganized per MOS:BEGIN.
  • Overall it looks to be in pretty good shape in terms of providing an overview.
  • Could his HR derby note both appearances rather than just 2015?
  • Personal life doesn't appear to be summarized in the LEAD right now.

Discussion[edit]

Happy to do this, even if I'm surprised to see someone named Sanfranciscogiants17 write about a Dodger. SF: can you confirm you remain interested in going through the GA process? Always like to check when there's been this long of a wait. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Yep, still interested! I must admit, Pederson's not one of my favorite players, but this article already was pretty high quality before I got started, so I figured I might as well take it up to GA. Let me know if more needs to be added to the 2020 section, since I nominated this midseason. I'd be happy to make any changes that are needed, shouldn't take too long. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This week at work has been very busy so I haven't been able to dive into this as quickly as I'd hoped. Sorry for the delay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been busy as well, so sorry I took my time getting around to addressing what you had written! I've made the changes you suggested thus far. Take your time with the rest of the review; I won't be impatient! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I went through the 2020 section and fixed some of the references there. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a first pass of the BODY and other criteria (e.g. copyright/images). I'm going to hold off on the LEAD for the time being (but it looks roughly in good shape). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out the stuff I think is done. Just a couple pieces left. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

The idea that "Thome has a 20 year career and Pederson has a 6 year career so we can cover Pederson in more depth" (paraphrasing you above) is, I think incorrect in our efforts to do summary style while offering due coverage (in other words neither over or under due). Part of my reluctance here is part of what determines GA standard are previous GAs as this particular issue does fall squarely in a GA criteria (3B). I am going to go ahead and list this for a second opinion on whether the current coverage of individual games is appropriate under criteria 3. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Included in your complaints about highlights not being a part of summary style is your apparent assumption that summaries should be of equal depth. This is not the case, as is clearly seen in Lewis (baseball). This article goes into incredible detail over one game - a game that would not be a highlight for the vast majority of major league pitchers. However, it was the only game Lewis ever pitched, and the author went into depth over it because there was less to talk about with Lewis. The article is featured. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the article, but I totally agree with the idea that someone early in their career can be covered much more in-depth compared to someone who has had a longer career or a more accomplished career (or both). I've certainly done this myself, in making articles for active players more in-depth than those for retired players. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the second opinion Sportsfan. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrueBlueLA[edit]

An editor has deleted a number of text entries on the claim that TrueBlueLA is not a reliable source. That claim is incorrect.[1] And the deletions should be reverted. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C0AD:9D65:5166:A244 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim is actually correct. SB Nation is not considered a reliable source for GA candidates. See Talk:Ryan Rowland-Smith/GA1. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, many of the deletions were made not merely because it was an unreliable source, but because the text cited went into unnecessary detail. If the info was worth keeping, the True Blue LA cites were merely replaced with reliable ones, and the information kept. The recent changes have been made with an eye towards getting it to GA status. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree with the assessment from that particular GA review.. SB Nation is a fairly reliable source and I have used it in other GA articles in the past without objection... Seems like you are using one particular persons view and treating it like consensus, which it is not.. That said, as long as the information remains I don't have any real problem with changing sources. Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spanneraol. I consider SB Nation to be reliable. It's not yet been discussed at RSN, as far as I can see. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't personally have anything against SB Nation; I was just going off what another user had said. Thanks for the feedback, and I'll keep this in mind in the future! Any information that was removed was also taken out because it was going into unnecessary detail, though, not just because of the reliability issue. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname[edit]

An editor mistakenly believes that King is not a nickname. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joc_Pederson&diff=1090201822&oldid=1090199924

However, we edit according to RSs. Not according to the beliefs of editors, however excellent they may be.

In this case, we have the best RS for major league baseball players, in mlb.com. The official site of major league baseball.

And it clearly states, in his mlb.com page, directly below his name: "Nickname: King."

This strikes me as irrefutable.

Of secondary importance, it is also listed as his nickname on his player page on MiLB.com. https://www.milb.com/app-firstpitch/player/joc-pederson-592626

And Baseball Reference. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pederjo01.shtml 

--2603:7000:2143:8500:9069:3DDE:A56:E2DE (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joc_Pederson&oldid=1206727456"