Talk:Mike Garcia (baseball, born 1923)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm struggling with this one. I'm finding a lot of issues. The article is hard work to read, and there are prose issues. Nor do I think that the article is accessible to the general reader, and leaves them with far too much work to do. Because of the structure of the playing career section, there is quite a lot of work to do before I would pass this. There are many things that are not quite clear, and do not emerge from the article. It is quite frustrating as the level of research and comprehensiveness is extremely high, but this just does not come across to the reader.
 * Prose can be tinkered with. The nuts and bolts are there.

I think the best course of action would be to fail this article as I do not think it can be sorted in one week. However, I am conscious that this has been waiting for a review for a long, long time. So I am prepared to keep this open for a while if the nominator wishes and try to work through it; the alternative would be to fail it, allow the nominator to work at it away from GAN, and then renominate the article. (In this latter case, given the delay in getting a review, I would be prepared to review it immediately it was nominated if this is desired.) I will place the review on hold for now, and await a response from the nominator. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to address your comments in a timely manner.

General
 * Dablinks and external links are OK, although if you check the external links tool, one reference is showing as a weird redirect, but this tool sometimes gives strange results, and this is not an issue.
 * I'm not strong in this area, but I clicked on all of the external links and reference links and they seem to go where intended. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency in referencing: some references are in the rp format, others give page numbers within the endnote. One or the other would be better; my personal preference is for the latter, but the choice is obviously yours.
 * Will put some more thought into this. If we're citing multiple different pages of the same reference, is there a way to do that without the rp format? EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've listed quite a few issues here, but to be honest, there are others which I could have added along similar lines. I would suggest a thorough check through the whole article, and getting a good copy-edit.
 * I'm a little unsure about the use of "earned" in the article; "earn a win" always strikes me as uncomfortable. Although this is not really an issue for this GA, it may be better to find a way to avoid this, and certainly use the word a little less.
 * My initial reaction was that "earned" is as encyclopedic as we get in baseball, but there are a few other ways to go: "finished the season with", "collected", "had". EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is something about the format of this article which does not quite work. For each season, it seems: mention a game or two, give his record, list where he came in the lead, and a (seemingly) random comment from a critic or two. Everything gets a bit repetitive, and any overall picture or story is slightly lost. For me, this is the biggest issue by far.
 * I tried to take out most of the references to spring training or single non-notable regular season games. For several of the quotes, I either removed them or moved them to the Legacy section. Let's see if it reads better. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think there is a bit of over-detailing, and a few bits could be cut back. For example, there are several parts which explain things which are not connected at all with Garcia. I think removing them would improve the article's readability.
 * As above. I have started to address this, and can probably do more trimming if needed. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the mass of detail, the overall picture is lost. I really don't get a sense while reading this of who the guy was, and what he was like as a pitcher. It is buried in a mass of statistics and quotes, and no story is allowed to emerge.
 * I'm trying to figure out the best approach to the lead so that it both summarizes the sections and sets up a better picture. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot-checks: "In the season's final regular season game against the Tigers, Garcia pitched 12 innings and left with the score tied at 6–6. The Tigers would win after 13 innings, 8–7, and Garcia earned a no-decision and failed to reach the 20-win mark. However, Greenberg had already assured Garcia he would receive a bonus regardless of whether he won 20 games or not": The game details are not covered by the given ref. All other spot-checks reveal no problems.
 * Will add the relevant box score for this game. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead
 * "He was one of the Indians' "Big Four" pitching staff from 1949 to 1954, along with Hall of Famers Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, and Bob Feller. The staff was considered one of the great rotations in baseball history.": Maybe better as: "Along with Hall of Famers Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, and Bob Feller, Garcia was one of the Indians' "Big Four" pitching staff from 1949 to 1954, which critics consider to be one of the great rotations in baseball history." (Although I'm none too sure about using "rotations" here)
 * Changed


 * "posting a pair of 20-win campaigns": How do you post a campaign? Maybe rephrase without using sports-speak.
 * Changed
 * The sentence now reads "He also posted a pair of 20-win seasons"; again, how can you post a season? This is still journalese. Why not make it more formal and go for "in two seasons, he posted 20 wins" or even "in two seasons, he recorded/registered/reached 20 wins". Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "and leading the American League in earned run average (ERA) and shutouts twice each": Maybe clarify for those who are unfamiliar that this was a lead in individual seasons, not across the six seasons.
 * Changed, good catch


 * "During that time he was considered to be…": By who? The obvious, if dull, solution here is "critics/commentators considered him to be"
 * Changed, went with dull but it's sourced


 * "for the 1954 season, "it could be claimed, he was considered to be the best pitcher on the season."": Requires intext attribution; see WP:INTEXT.
 * Thanks for letting me know. Wasn't aware in-text att was needed.
 * "During that time commentators considered him to be amongst the game's five best pitchers and for the 1954 season, baseball historian Stephen Lombardi said "it could be claimed, he was considered to be the best pitcher on the season."": Reading this sentence again, I am struck that perhaps the quote isn't necessary, and the comma in the middle of it, while doubtless correct within the context quoted, does not quite work within the punctuation of that sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The last edit took out the first part of the sentence, but kept the quote. This now loses the idea of him being very good, and keeps the punctuation problem. There is something a bit off with the grammar of the sentence + quote. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rearranged the lead and moved the quotes entirely out of it. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "won an American League-record 111 games": Presumably the record for most wins in a season, but worth specifying.
 * Yep, for a 154-game season. Specified
 * The sentence now reads: "The Indians that year won an American League-record 111 games, a record amount for a 154-game season.": I'm not sure "amount" is grammatically correct here, and I think "number" should be used. A simpler construction may be: "The Indians 111 victories that year broke the record for the most wins in an American League season". Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Garcia, nicknamed the "Big Bear," was selected as one of the Top 100 Greatest Indians in March 2001": Slightly odd phrasing, and the two clauses in this sentence do not really have any connection. Suggest splitting.
 * Addressed
 * Not really. The sentence now begins "Garcia, who was he was noticed...", and I still do not see a connection between his nickname and the fact that he signed for the Indians. For the sentence to be worded like this, there should be an obvious connection. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * According to WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the whole article, but there is nothing about his early life or his career after baseball.
 * I've added his death, birth state and location of death.
 * But the lead still does not summarise the information within those sections of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would be open to more feedback here. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Early life
 * "Garcia was born in San Gabriel, California, and grew up on his family's horse ranch in Orosi after his Mexican father, Merced Garcia, moved the family there when the younger Garcia was two years of age": Slightly long sentence.
 * Split


 * "Garcia worked sparingly as a jockey": How do you work sparingly as a jockey?
 * I have changed to "occasionally" although I'm not sure what the exact issue is here; he wasn't putting in 20/hrs a week doing so, hence staying away from "part-time" as well; it was in essence a hobby that he earned some coin for. I thought "sparingly" conveyed that rather well but let me know.
 * The sentence now reads "Wit his familiarity with horses, Garcia worked as an occasional jockey as a teenager, a profession he considered during that time.": Apart from the typo for with, the sentence as written suggests that he considered a profession as a teenager, and we have "as ... as". Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Garcia began pitching semipro baseball when Cleveland Indians scout Willis Butler noticed Garcia in Tulare, California, and in 1942 signed him as an amateur free agent to the organization's Class D farm team Appleton Papermakers of the Wisconsin State League": Another long sentence, and did Butler himself actually sign Garcia?
 * Yep, Butler was in Calif. and would've been the scout who was given credit for signing him to be w/ the CLE org. I have reiterated "Butler" for clarity


 * "With Appleton, Garcia earned a 10–10 win-loss record": In 1942, presumably?
 * Added


 * "and signed with the Class C Bakersfield Indians": Not quite clear here; did he remain signed for the Indians throughout the war, or did he re-sign for the same team?
 * If he would've stayed, it would've been purely contractual as he was enlisted full-time. I don't actually know if by entering the service it nullified his contract, or who would own the rights to him upon finishing up his time with the military; I would assume CLE would still own the rights to him upon completion of his duties
 * Couldn't find a source that specified. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "In 1947 he joined the major league Indians": This does not quite sound right.
 * I was was attempting to avoid usage of "Cleveland Indians" so many times, as seeing as the minor league team was also known as the Indians, simply using "Indians" would be confusing; let me know if you like the changes


 * "was sent by Cleveland coach Bill McKechnie to Class A Wilkes-Barre Barons": Should this be "the Class A…"?
 * I've seen it both ways; grammatically, I suppose it's possible only one is correct


 * "He joined the Double-A Oklahoma City Indians of the Texas League and earned 19 wins.": This is a bit abrupt! And it needs a date.
 * I've attempted to address this.
 * Zepppep (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians
 * This section is a bit of a wall of text; some sub-headings would break it up nicely.
 * Addressed; let me know
 * Fine, although I'm not sure why it needs to go down to level 4 and 5 headings. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's better now, though I still wonder if there's a way to combine Outside of Baseball with Illness and Death to merge two stubby sections. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, some of the paragraphs are a bit long, which makes for hard reading.
 * Agree, split up


 * "Garcia debuted with the Indians on October 8, 1948, with a two-inning relief appearance in the last regular-season game of the season before the Indians were set to play in the 1948 World Series.": Slightly long sentence?
 * Changed


 * "Nicknamed "The Big Bear" by teammate Joe Gordon for his 6 feet 1 inch (1.85 m), 200 lb (91 kg) frame (actual playing weight between 215–200 lb (97–100 kg)), and "Mexican Mike" by the press, Garcia prepared for the upcoming season during spring training": I think we are shoe-horning too much trivia into the start of this sentence which is unconnected with the main point. If this information is essential, maybe find a better place for it?
 * Way too much going on here; changed
 * But I'm still struggling to see the connection between his nickname, height and weight, and his attendance at spring training. The two pieces of information are not in any way related, and should not be linked like this. Again, I'd say find another place for the first part of the sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Garcia prepared for the upcoming season during spring training": Isn't that the general idea?
 * Made it more specific. The idea that I wanted to present here was that he was invited for a second straight year, which doesn't always happen with pro ball players


 * "fellow Indians pitcher Satchel Paige balked in the sixth inning": Balked?
 * Linked so anyone who's confused can check it out; there is no other substitute; it's essential jargon


 * "but Garcia managed to start in just under half of his total game appearances": I'm not sure that "managed" is the correct word; it wasn't really in his hands.
 * Changed


 * "Said Harder, "Garcia…": I don't think "said x" is the best format for an encyclopaedic article.
 * OK


 * "Instead, he finished the 1950 season 11–11.": Instead of what?
 * Instead of finishing with a stellar record like the two previous comments lead the reader to think might happen; re-iterated to avoid any possible confusion


 * "would by 1951 have Latino players such as Minnie Miñoso and Jesse Flores on the roster, in addition to Garcia and Ávila, and Lopez as manager": This is the first time that ethnicity comes into the article. Was it an issue before this? Also, why not just "by 1951 had Latino players …"
 * Re-wrote
 * OK, but why mention that ethnicity played an issue in his career at this point, rather than at the point he was signed? And the sentence now reads "The 1951 season was the first for new Indians manager Al Lopez. The Indians had in 1947 signed Larry Doby, thus becoming the first American League team to sign a black player. By 1951 the team also added Latino players such as Minnie Miñoso and Jesse Flores, in addition to the previous signings of Garcia and Ávila, and Lopez as manager." While interesting, most of this information is not directly relevant to Garcia. I think I would do some cutting, or summarise it down much further at the very least. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "but wanted to implement the curveball into Garcia's repertoire": You don't implement something into a repertoire.
 * not sure how not, but changed nonetheless; if a pitcher has 2 pitches he relies on, that would be his repertoire; if another is added, his repertoire (aka go-to pitches) has been expanded...let me know if changes are still needed
 * It's fine now, and the problem was not with the intention, but the phrasing. "Implement" just did not work, but add works fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not mention that he was learning the curveball, and Harder's influence, in 1949 rather than re-capping in 1951?
 * He learned it in '49 but it's not at all uncommon for a pitcher to have to have a few years of using the pitch in real games to call it one of his better pitches; do you like the change?


 * "a 10-hit complete game": Sorry, lost me here.
 * made "complete game" linkable so anyone readers are confused can look it up


 * "overcome a two-year drought": Sports speak?
 * Yep. Changed to "losing streak"


 * "moved his season mark to 5–3": I don't think we are moving anything here.
 * "improved"


 * "Garcia, Lemon, and Wynn increasingly were referred to as the "Big Three" as Garcia's role on the team increased and Feller began the latter part of his career and the "Big Four" was used less frequently to describe the Indians' starting rotation": I don't quite get the point that this sentence is making.
 * Changed
 * Better, but there is still a fundamental problem here. Despite the section title, this is the first time that we have been told that they were known as the "Big Four", so this change lacks any impact for the reader. I also think the point could be made more economically, for example: "Feller's dominance faded as he entered the latter stages of his career, and the "Big Four" now became the "Big Three" of Garcia, Lemon and Wynn." Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Big Four" is used in the lead, no? Zepppep (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "He won 20 games in 1951 while also finishing fifth in the AL with six saves": Who is he? Four men are the subjects of the previous sentence, and it may be any of them.
 * Changed


 * "As the Indians battled for the 1952 American League pennant heading into September, Garcia recorded three consecutive shutouts to begin the month, part of an eight-game win streak which included two shutouts by fellow pitching mate Early Wynn (who later was Garcia's roommate on road trips).": Shutout … shutout.
 * Changed
 * But we still have close repetition of "shutout", albeit in consecutive sentences rather than the same sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Addressed. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "with Garcia and Lemon with 22 each": with … with
 * Changed


 * "to the AL 1953 Major League Baseball All-Star Game|All-Star]]": Something wrong with the mark-up here.
 * I will attempt to address all concerns, even these easily-fixable ones


 * Garcia quote: ""Lopez said he wanted to go for the record…": What record? This is the first mention of it.
 * Put the quote later in the article


 * "The Tigers would win after 13 innings…": Why not just "won"?
 * I do this alot; changed


 * "In fact, three wins…": In fact looks like editorialising.
 * Shame on me; tends to happen when I make parenthetical referencing


 * "The team finished 111–43, a 154-game record…": A record for what?
 * Specified


 * "His ERA received mentioned in an article": This does not really make sense.
 * Small conjugation error; addressed


 * "was described thus": A bit flowery.
 * Changed


 * "(Since 1955 he operated a dry cleaning business in Parma, Ohio)": Why is this in the playing career section?
 * Because I feel the reader will be confused when they read "my business" but not know what Garcia was referring to
 * I'm not entirely convinced, but not a big deal anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How else do you recommend informing the reader about what is meant by "business?" If the quote is removed, it weakens the case for him having an actual fondness and practical reason for staying in the comm. I'm open for suggestions. Zepppep (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "By September, before the season had ended, the Senators placed him on waivers": What are waivers?
 * Made linkable

Off the field
 * It is a little odd to read about his death, and then read more about what he did in his life in the next sentences. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Outside of Baseball is now before Illness and Death. Legacy is the last section now, but I think the context makes it clear that these are observations about the career of someone who has died. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Just to summarise where I feel this article is
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose issues, including jargon, and the lead does not meet the MoS. Also, issue over readability, particularly for the non-specialist.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I feel there is overdetailing, and perhaps too much which does not directly concern Garcia.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No problem with the one image
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quite a lot of issues at the moment
 * I'll see what I can do! Thanks for the thorough run-thru. Zepppep (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quite a lot of issues at the moment
 * I'll see what I can do! Thanks for the thorough run-thru. Zepppep (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This review has now been open for two weeks, and nothing has been done here or on the article since the 3 December. If there is no further action by 21 December, I will have to fail the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some work on the sentence structure and organization of the article, focusing on some of the issues in this review. I'm not very experienced in GA matters, so I don't know if we're even close to where we need to be. I would be interested in working on specific aspects of this one to get it to GA status, whether that's on this review or a subsequent one. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 05:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, I think the edits have really helped, and have certainly "de-jargoned" it. There are a few new issues below, but we are getting close. To summarise, anything unstruck remains an issue for me. The last edits have clarified the article somewhat, but I would suggest that someone looks at the general points at the start of this review and sees if his career can be made a little more clear. There is still a bit too much quote and anecdote, and not enough overall picture. I would pass without this being sorted, but I think it would help the reader. We are nearly there, even if this review has been pretty heavy going. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A few new issues:


 * "and allowed the go-ahead run to score in a 5–3 Pirates win.": Jargon needs linking or explaining.
 * I took out the whole mention of that apparently insignificant game. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Indians player-manager Lou Boudreau considered using Garcia out of the bullpen, but Garcia ended up with 20 starts in 41 appearances by the end of the regular season.": Connection between the two parts of this sentence? Why "but"?
 * Redid the sentence. Boudreau did a lot more than consider it if Garcia started only 20 of 41 games. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "finished his rookie season with a 14–5 record, a league-leading 2.36 ERA, with 94 strikeouts and five shutouts": Is the comma correct after ERA? Something is a bit off. And I think "shutouts" needs linking.
 * It looks like I started to change the sentence structure and got distracted by a shiny object before taking out the "with". Fixed. Shutouts was linked in the lead and I get confused on these linking rules. Do we link only once, once after the lead, or just at our own discretion?  EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Overuse of Harder in the paragraph beginning "Garcia had learned"
 * I think it sounds okay now. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Garcia reached a career-high 15 wins against the St. Louis Browns on August 7.": 15 wins against that specific team, or reached 15 wins in the game which just happened to be against that team? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed the sentence structure to clarify. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A few loose ends:
 * I've basically re-read the whole thing as this is getting quite messy, rather than go through and re-strike things. I think this is looking much more like it. I think just about everything is OK; there are quite a few improvements that could be made, but I suspect we're all getting a little weary of this now! It is close enough to be passed as a GA, but the article would need a LOT of work before considering going near FAC. Just a few last, minor points, and then I'll pass.
 * "The progression of the game was described: "...a throwing error by George Strickland...": Who said this? Required intext attribution ("was described by X...")
 * On the "Big Four" thing, it is covered in the lead, but needs to be included in the main body; the lead should not contain information not in the main body.
 * On the lead, there should be something in there on each of the main parts of the article. Maybe a few sentences on his early life, and a touch more on his later career. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think these are addressed now. I lost a couple of changes when I goofed up on an edit conflict, but I think they are back where they need to be. Thank you so much for a kind and thorough review. I learned a great deal by sorting through some of these things. EricEnfermero  Howdy! 23:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, finally good to go, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)