Wikipedia:Peer review/Ozzie Smith/archive2

Ozzie Smith[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the last time I put this article up for Featured Article status, it was suggested that there was a lot of "peacockery" that was holding the article back. So, I'm looking for someone to make sure the article complies with the NPOV policy, that the "peacockery" is eliminated, and that any syntax errors/poorly written sentences are pointed out and addressed. As a side note, I've had two featured article reviews and one peer review in the past year, & I think I've addressed any leftover comments from those reviews, but if not, I'd love to re-evaluate any of those comments too. I think the article is really close to FA status, but it just needs a few touch ups to put it over the top.

Thanks, Monowi (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to read the whole article, but it still has issues judging by the lead. I removed two excessive terms, but it is still pushing the POV envelope by selective presentation of facts. It's the problem most sports and University related articles have. They tell us all the best and greatest things the athlete has done. While those do establish why an athlete is important, good etc it usually goes too far. It's not POV to say that an athlete that is widely considered to be excellent is, especially when you cite who says so, but it is getting POV when you say they are outstanding and have done x,y, and z unparalleled feats without mentioning that they are simply average or maybe even below average in many other respects. Scanning through the rest of the article there is more. I see things like "Plus, Smith still received accolades even after his playing days." which is something that would simply not appear in NPOV writing not by a fan. Sorry I can't finetooth the whole thing right now, but basically look for anywhere positive wording is used and basically if a non baseball fan wouldn't use the same wording based on the facts at hand, it's probably too positive and thus not NPOV. Also look for everywhere where you say he is the best, did the best, etc, and it probably needs to be balanced by something else or simply reworded to state the fact. For example instead of the bit about 13 Golden Gloves in a row being unequaled, just say he won 13 in a row. That is fact and impressive enough. Maddux won 18, so phrasing it in that way is unecessary. Of course it's a different position but that's sort of the point: if you exclude so and so, there's this amazing fact. That's how sports stories are written, but we can't do that and reach NPOV. I hope I've explained what I'm getting at in a way that helps. - Taxman ^Talk 04:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I completely understand your points about NPOV, and I'm definitely going to go over the article with a renewed focused to help weed these instances like the two you cited. Any additional phrases or sentences you could point out would be welcome. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]