Talk:Édgar González (pitcher)

NPOV Concern
After consulting with a Wikipedia administrator whose opinion I value highly, I have decided to post this comment.

In my opinion, the tone, the length, and the level of detail of this article give the impression that the writer(s) may be personally acquainted with the subject and/or have a bias in favor of the subject. This is a rather subjective analysis, I must admit, and there does not seem to be an overt POV problem here. But the overall article seems to have a subjective, overly-glowing quality that is difficult to describe in words.

In places, the prose reads like an apologetic, suggesting that González would have had better statistics if this or that hadn't happened. The level of Minor League detail is unusual for a MLB player article. The prose reads in a rather informal tone, almost as if one were talking about a friend. Words such as "Édgar" and "he" are liberally sprinkled around, rather than the more encyclopedic "González". - Please do not misunderstand. The possible problems I listed above are neither overt nor bad. The article does not come across as being overtly biased or glowing. However, I do get the impression that the author has either a conflict of interest or a bias.

On a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 meaning totally negative toward González and 100 meaning totally positive, I would say this article falls somewhere in the 55 to 60 range. Again, this is not attributable to any overt, questionable statements such as "González is the greatest pitcher to come from México." It has more to do with the tone of the article than any one statement that is made. At the very least, I would suggest making the tone more formal and encyclopedic.

I would recommend that the authors read some other MLB player articles and compare them to the González article, as I believe this may be more helpful in explaining what I am trying to say about tone, style, and neutrality. Jonneroo (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to have contradicted myself above, when I said in one place that the article "seems to have a subjective, overly-glowing quality", whereas in another, I said it "does not come across as being overtly biased or glowing". So I suppose a clarification might be in order.


 * The article does seem to be more "glowing" in its assessment of the subject than it should. It does not, on the other hand, seem to be excessive to the point of being controversial or extremely noticeable. I hope that helps explain what I meant to say. Jonneroo (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. My recommendation would be to be bold and change the wording wherever you think it sounds over the top.  On the other hand, I'd be careful about commenting negatively on the article's length alone.  To me, all articles should contain as much useful information as possible, as long as what is stated is supported by reliable sources.  I've backed up this belief by writing (or vastly expanding) articles on obscure players which are several times longer than some of the near-robotic stubs we have about well-known players.  E.g., Jeff Duncan, Tim Foli (a good article which I'd like to think could become featured if he were more well-known), Barry Lyons, Tim Teufel, Bill Pulsipher, John Stearns, and several others.  Don't be fooled by the quantity over quality atmosphere that is often prevalent here, esp. among sports bio articles.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your sage advice. And you have quite a article-ography going there. How 'bout those '86 Mets? :)


 * Re: the length of the article, I don't mean to suggest that it was excessive or that its length was inappropriate. I was more concerned about the unusual degree of detail (leading indirectly to greater overall article length) in the Minor League sections.
 * Since I started this discussion, I have been wavering re: whether I should have started it at all. I feel the article has merit and is not inappropriate, but it could be worded more professionally for lack of a better term. I will see whether perhaps I can improve the wording. Jonneroo (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong to worry about a possible COI. I see now that most of the article was added by a single editor,, and those are some of the editor's only contributions.  But in this case, the edits seem to be at least workable.  You should be safe to re-shape it if you want, though, since Arturohillo has not edited in the six or seven months since his massive expansion.  Enjoy!  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)