Talk:Madison Bumgarner/GA4

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

This article has major issues with GA criteria 1 as it is not well written prose. For example 50 paragraphs begin with the word "on". His accomplishments should be condensed into chunks that focus on seasons as a whole (with possible exceptions made for certain World Series/post season appearances). Additionally the lead has not been updated since 2014 and even then probably did not properly address MOS:INTRO. This article failed GA nominations twice and the review which finally passed it is, imo, rather minimal suggesting it perhaps never should have been promoted. Pinging as interested editors. WikiProject Baseball also notified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, most of those "on" sentences are "On X date at AT&T Park...", all with the link, when it only should be linked on the first usage. (IIRC, the article quality was GA when it was passed, but it has gotten worse since then.) – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is extensive (to a fault?) and is seemingly well-sourced but the structure and writing style of the prose is not good. It would take some real time and effort to rearrange, edit, and massage it to get it to GA-caliber. -- T orsodo g Talk 13:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for your analysis. I'm having a bit of confusion interpreting what outcome your are going for. Are you suggesting if given more time you would improve this back to GA (that would definitely be possible) or are you agreeing this should be delisted? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hah, I didn't really specify either way, did I? I would say it should probably be delisted unless someone can commit to sinking a considerable amount of time into the article. I, unfortunately, don't have that time! -- T orsodo g Talk 14:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the primary problem is the writing, the article could always be submitted to Guild of Copy Editors requests, and a decision here postponed until the guild has done their work, which will probably take a few weeks. (The request should mention that the article is at GAR.) If the problems are more extensive than that, the copyedit probably won't be sufficient, though the article should be improved from its current state. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think GOCE could help with the 50 paragraphs that start with "On X date" to some extent. But it seems beyond their scope to address the underlying Proseline that caused for the article to go in that direction - not all of these events merit mentioning in a GA article and it would take an interested editor to really sort through that. They also couldn't be expected to improve the lead (which hasn't been updated since the GA passed in 2014). If there was an editor who was interested in taking on improving this article it would, by all means, make sense to give them time to work and give GOCE time to make an imprint as well. But absent someone willing to do that - and so far that editor hasn't stepped forward - this seems headed towards delisting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you come to a conclusion with this GAR? --MrClog (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)