Talk:Michael Soroka

Suggestions
I noticed a Teahouse thread about getting this entry to GA status. I've reviewed and expanded a number of baseball articles for GA status, and without getting super detailed, here are a couple of suggestions that may help before you nominate the entry for GA. I think this one is off to a great start.

The early life timeline isn't 100% clear to me. The MLB draft is mentioned in the lead section, but in the body it kind of glosses over his going from HS to committing to Cal to playing in the Gulf Coast League. My assumptions are that he was class of 2015 at Bishop Carroll, committed to Cal during his senior year there, then decided not to attend Cal after being selected by the Atlanta Braves. I would just state that sequence of events a little more specifically so that the reader doesn’t have to make assumptions.

The other thing is that it's easy for baseball articles to fall into a pattern where each season is pretty much just the stats, disabled list stints, transactions, and All-Star or postseason appearances. Instead of just doing that, look to see what sources you can find that add context to his success or lack of success. For example, he went from pretty good in Rookie League to really good at AA a couple of years later (2.75 ERA, Futures Game). Do any of his coaches (or sportswriters) describe what happened? Maybe he added mustard to his fastball or gained muscle mass from a new offseason workout routine. What does he do well as a pitcher - power, breaking pitches, outsmarting the batter? You don't want to turn the article into a collection of quotes, but brief discussion of things like this can help the reader to know what kind of pitcher he is. Even in the high school stuff, why did Reitsma say Soroka reminded him of himself?

It's a challenge to write a GA on a guy whose best days are probably ahead of him. This one is off to a good start, and I hope this helps. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As someone who is not really a Soroka, I have made some edits with existing sources. I have stated in the edit summary the sources from which I got my facts. Please take a look, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 01:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to read about your impending retirement from Wikipedia, but with a volunteer endeavor like this, you definitely shouldn't feel compelled to continue unless it's enjoyable. Regarding the GA nomination, I think some reviewers might consider it a little premature, but sometimes there is only one way to know for sure. I notice that some of the feedback you received hasn't been fully implemented yet, like the suggestion that the lead section is too short. I took a quick stab at expanding the lead, but I don't think it's perfect yet.


 * The Early Life section is still a little vague. I put a couple of items in chronological order for better flow. It looks like there are a few statements that could use sourcing (you want the sources to appear in the article, not in the edit summaries). There is no mention of the 2021 season, which is probably going to stick out to a GA reviewer (especially because we are dealing with a very young player). If you're interested in working on these items, you probably still have some time, as most articles don't get picked up for review right away.


 * Once the review starts, you and the reviewer can work together to fix some things, but ideally you want to get the article in the best possible shape before the review, because a reviewer can fail a nomination outright if they determine that the entry is a long way from meeting any of the GA criteria. Let me know how I can help. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)