Talk:Hank Aaron/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 21, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The article has several basic structural problems. The WP:LEAD exceeds tha four paragraph limit due to several abbreviated paragraphs lumped in together.  This problem extends into the main body of the text where several sections contain numerous choppy paragraphs.  The article needs to be reorganized to have more substantive paragraphs. I would convert $10,000 in 1952 to current dollars (see Fountain of Time).  I would use the link for the Puerto Rican league like they do in the Jackie Robinson article rather than name the country.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Numerous paragraphs have no citations. The article should be reorganized so that each paragraph has at least one citation.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: I would also prefer to see a section devoted to a statistical summary of his career. See Barry Bonds, which has a section showing where he ranks in several important statistical categories.  Aaron's article would benefit by such a seciton.  I would also expand his playing career section so that it is not out of balance with the home run record cont3ent.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
 * 5. Article stability? Yes
 * 6. Images?: File:HankAaron1957.jpg appears to be under consideration for deletion.

This article has a way to go. I would like to see expansion in areas and reorganization in others.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this article needs more work before making GA-there are POV and peacock statements, some of which I've edited, and I propose to do still more in this regard. Hushpuckena (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)