Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Billy Martin/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2018.

Billy Martin

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a larger than life figure, even almost 30 years after his death. Growing up in the New York area in the late 70s, Billy Martin was on the front pages, or the back pages of the tabloids, very often. I was at the Old-Timers' Day in 1978, and I well remember the crowd cheering for 15 minutes ...Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Info: He played baseball. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes well I figured it went without saying ... it does say Major League Baseball in the lede sentence...--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm going to do a sweep for any writing issues as time permits and expect to find myself supporting afterward. One thing I notice immediately is that ref 138 is a bare link. That needs some further formatting. Otherwise, I look forward to sinking my teeth into this article and will report any further issues I find. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've cleaned up a few things in the article and just have the following source-related comments to offer:
 * Note c could use a cite, as it doesn't have one at the moment.
 * Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Haven't checked the relevant pages, but it looks like refs 1 and 168 could be duplicates that can be combined.
 * Done.
 * Ref 145 (the Neyer book) needs a page number.
 * Since ref 194 is to a website, that one needs an access date.
 * Did this one myself to move things along. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Publisher of ref 192 should be italicized, because that's to a newspaper article.
 * Some of the date formatting is inconsistent in a few places, and should be made internally consistent. (UTC) Giants2008 ( Talk ) 01:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've got everything. Thank you for the edits and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – An enjoyable read which appears to meet FA standards to my eyes. Hopefully we'll get some more reviewer activity here soon, because the article deserves it. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for leading the way. Thank you for the kind words. Hopefully we will see more action.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Image/Source review: All the images have the appropriate info and check out copyright-wise. Was surprised but impressed that the one video was in the public domain, was not expecting that. For sources everything checks out except for a couple admittedly nitpicky things. There's a few web links that don't have accessdates (the ones that have physical page numbers i wouldn't want them, but the once that dont id like to see accessdates added), and for the Sports Illustrated reference I would like to see an archive link added. I only ask that as SI is notorious for rehauling their site with some frequency, completely breaking their links in the process. I'll try to make a prose review in the future but I'm on here so sparingly anymore it's unlikely. Wizardman  16:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review. I've done what you asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Fifelfoo
yes, even on biography Fifelfoo (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not resolveable: oh gods the sports category boxes, my eyes. Damn them.
 * Impressed with selection in bibliography for bio[graphy]-diversity
 * Reference diversity good
 * Excellent media "BILLY, JAX CLASH IN DUGOUT" I do not normally review media.  But this is excellent.
 * I think it is an appropriate length given the sources
 * Thank you for the review and support. I'm glad you approve of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
Taking a look now...


 * ... and manager who, as well as leading other teams, was five times the manager of the New York Yankees. - I can understand the crescendo of this sentence. But it is a bit odd that his main claim to fame is later rather than earlier in the sentence...
 * It would be hard to make it too much earlier, I don't think you could put it before the basic description, so might as well leave it as is.
 * Yeah I'll pay that. Looking at it, any other wy of rejigging it makes it sound funny so nevermind...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  His skill as a baseball player gave him a route out of Berkeley. "Berkeley" repeated - this maybe could be worded better. I get what you mean.
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * .. but was inhibited by the fact that the second baseman ... - not fond of "inhibited"...maybe "hindered", "stymied" or something more Anglo-Saxon?
 * Deterred seems good? Although it seems a bit French.
 * .. his skills as a player never fully returned after leaving the army. - unless he had amnesia I think we are talking about prowess. i.e. he has skills but his ability declined...
 * I've changed it but I'm not sure there's much difference. The idea is that he probably could not have made the catch against Robinson in 1955.
 *  Martin had good reason to believe his days with the team were numbered - unless the source strongly suggested this might be better to just say, "Martin suspected/concluded/surmised his days with the team were numbered"
 * I put worried.
 *  After a poor April, Martin's players turned it around, winning seven in a row to surge to within 4$1/2$ games of the first place Red Sox near the start of June. - you could eliminate the "turned it around" (it is a bit fluffy anyway) and let the facts speak for themselves.
 * I see it's already gone.
 *  With Detroit winning, those hostile to Martin among the players subsided. - umm, sounds odd. Needs rephrasing.
 * Done.
 *  The Tigers lost Game One in extra innings. - err, should there be an indefinite or definite article before "innings"?
 * No. Standard terminology.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  With Martin at the helm, the Yankees went 30–26 in their final 56 games of the 1975 season; they ended the season in third place, where they had been when Martin took over - there's two "Martin"s in the sentence.
 * Fixed.
 *  Martin worked with Paul during the offseason [to make trades] to dispose of players  - could argue bracketed bit is redundant
 * That's deleted.

Overall a fascinating article. Striking the right balance between mimimalist, succinct prose and a more flowery engaging one can be tricky in these articles. I think it is (on the whole) okay here, though others might think it needs a bit of tightening...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Although there are phrases here and there that could be cut, and I've been doing so, the major reason for the length is that there are nearly a dozen narrative arcs as Martin is hired, does amazing things on the field and less happy things off it, and is fired. All that requires words. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian
I started working my way through the article and copyediting soon after it was nominated but have been waylaid at several points -- I'll certainly try and resume soon. The main thing that has come out of it so far is that I found a fair bit of minor detail to trim but I've noticed that Wehwalt has been cutting some non-essential stuff as well, which I expect will make the remainder of my ce a bit quicker and simpler. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to cut some, but see no point in cutting two or three words that won't add up to much over the course of the article. Thank you for your comments to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I've always been interested in baseball, I don't know Martin's story so I'm not really in a position to judge whether entire statements are vital or not, thus I'm mainly trimming what I see as excess wording, not removing content per se. There's clearly a lot to this guy's story, most of it very interesting to read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, apologies this took so long -- as I suggested above, highly detailed but not boringly so. Outstanding points, not affecting support: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Tigers won the first two, though they lost the meaningless third game, making them the AL East champs by a half game." -- I realise we mean the third game didn't affect the outcome, just trying to think of a better word than "meaningless"...
 * "making John Hiller a successful closer" -- might want to link closer
 * "Martin had pledged to bat Jackson cleanup" -- might want to link cleanup
 * Thank you for the thorough review, and for the support. It is always good to get the thoughts of someone who is not particularly into the subject matter. Excepting the meaningless, I've done those things. Meaningless is used by the source, and it had no effect on the standings, and I can't come up with a better word.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No prob -- the expression I'm used to is dead rubber, but you decide if you want to try and work it in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that it is not current in American speech, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  14:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.