Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:03, 27 July 2011.

Derek Jeter

 * Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In honor of Derek Jeter joining the 3,000 hit club this weekend, I am nominating this article for FA. Jeter is one of the highest profile baseball players in the history of the game, what with his playing in the largest media market for the most polarizing team, and of course all of the advances in video and social media that have occurred prior to and during his career. This article is well-written, stable, and deserves its recognition. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "In 1997, Jeter batted .291, with 10 home runs, 70 runs batted in, 116 runs and 190 hits" - source?
 * "His season totals in batting average, runs, hits, runs batted in, doubles (37), triples (9), home runs (24), slugging percentage (.552), and on-base percentage (.438) are all personal bests. Jeter batted .455 in the 1999 American League Division Series, .350 in the 1999 American League Championship Series, and .353 in the 1999 World Series, as the Yankees defeated the Braves to win another championship." - source?
 * "Jeter batted .339, with 15 home runs, 73 runs batted in, 119 runs scored, and 22 stolen bases in 2000. He batted only .211 in the Division Series but rebounded to bat .318 against the Seattle Mariners in the Championship Series and .409, with two home runs, a triple, and two doubles in a five-game series against the New York Mets in the World Series, the first Subway Series since 1956." - source? Check for other unsourced statements
 * Use a consistent date format
 * This link returns an access-forbidden notice
 * Retrieval dates aren't required for Google Books links
 * Book sources need page numbers for verifiability
 * Be consistent in how you refer to websites. For example, you have MLB, MLB.com and MLB.com on different occasions
 * Be consistent in what is italicized when, what is wikilinked when, etc
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This?
 * Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
 * Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines or not
 * NYT's official title is The New York Times
 * All web sources need publishers and retrieval dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All other stat related sentences are verified by Baseball Reference, FanGraphs, MLB.com and other reliable source external links, but :*The Baseball Cube and FanGraphs are highly reputable sites for baseball statistics, awards, and other information. I believe Baseball Almanac is also reputable, but I should double check. The Baseball Almanac source has been removed as it is only used once, and a better source exists there. I know less about TV.com, but I think it's okay. I was wrong about TV.com, I thought it was something else. It's a bad source and it has been removed. Hollywood Rag is a gossip site I know nothing about, but it demonstrates that Jeter is common tabloid gossip fodder with his relationships. Hollywood Rag is removed in favor of better sources. Any other input on these sources is welcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Date format is now consistent. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I get an example of how publishers are listed for an online newspaper article? The publisher and the work/newspaper would be the same, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Media: File:Jeter Gets a Hit2.jpg could do with some more information. Other than that, everything checks out. Some of them are great photos. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"See also" is out of control (most relevant info should be worked into the text), MOS review and prose tightening will be needed. I left some samples, but there are numerous MOS and prose issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "As a child, Jeter and his sister spent summers ...
 * All of the specific points you made with the hidden comments and that above example are fixed. I'll give the prose another close read tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments BUC (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jeter became the first Yankee player to hit 3,000 hits in his career, the 28th in baseball history to do so, and the second player, after Wade Boggs, to achieve the feat with a home run." First Yankees ever Wow! didn't know that. Anyway is the bit about it being a home run really worth mentioning in the lead?
 * "Topps/NAPBL" what is this? why is only the first bit a link? and why is it to a chewing gum company?
 * Not much on the 1997 season.
 * "The Yankees went on to win in 11 innings and eventually won the series, 4 games to 1." four games to one.
 * "The Yankees flashed the words "Mr. November,...Despite the nickname" this sounds like the nickname has some sort of supernatural power to help him play better.
 * Why does "Career statistics" only have the 2011 season?
 * "Jeter is one of only three athletes to have their own Jumpman shoe and has replaced Thierry Henry in the American market for Gillette Fusion commercials along with Tiger Woods and Roger Federer." needs refs
 * Ref #94 is dated November 16 2006 but says it was retrieved November 14 2006.
 * The "2004–2007" section also covers 2003.
 * Responses


 * Some of the others in the 3000 hit club were Yankees at one point or another, but Jeter is the only member to spend a majority of his career with the Yankees, and the only member to get his 3000th hit in a Yankee uniform. I agree the bit about the home run isn't lead worthy, but was added due to recentism.
 * I defined the acronym NAPBL in the first paragraph of that section. It was called the "Topps/NAPBL" award at the time it was given, named after the Topps company and NAPBL jointly.
 * There isn't much to say about the 1997 season. It was his second year, was pretty average, for him anyway, and the Yankees didn't make the World Series.
 * Fixed
 * Fixed
 * It was decided at WP:BASEBALL to only give the most recent (or current) season along with the career stat line to not violate WP:NOT.
 * Fixed
 * Fixed
 * Fixed – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Nobody loves the subject of the article more than me, but there appears to be a great deal of prose-related work needed at first glance. The article is full of relatively short paragraphs, and flow is lacking. Proseline exists in much of the career summary; the 2011 season is a particularly good example of this. When I compare this to the FA Mariano Rivera, I see that that article has much better flow throughout, and is more effective at telling a story, in its own way. Not convinced that this is ready yet, but will be watching carefully in the hope that my pessimism is misplaced.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Really sorry to do this, because a lot of work has obviously gone into this article. To echo the comments of Giants above, there are many prose issues. The text is repetitive, with lots of sentences beginning "Jeter", "He", or "In XXXX". This is particularly notable in the career summaries. I also notice the proseline mentioned above which makes it hard going to read in places. There is also very little flow; for example, "Jeter was inspired to play baseball by Hall of Famer Dave Winfield.[14] In high school, Jeter was a star baseball player at Kalamazoo Central High School, where he also played basketball, earning an All-State honorable mention.": these two sentences have no connection. Another example: "Newhouser felt so strongly about Jeter's potential that he quit his job after the Astros passed on him.[18] Jeter was drafted by the New York Yankees with the sixth overall pick, and he chose to turn professional." These two sentences are obviously connected but there is nothing to smooth the flow between them, such as "Instead, Jeter was...". In addition, there are many short paragraphs which look like mere recitations of statistics. There are also instances of jargon/journalese and ambiguities in the language. This is a list of some issues I noticed down to the start of the "Major League Baseball" section, but they are examples only. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jeter became the first Yankee player to hit 3,000 hits in his career, the 28th in baseball history to do so." The 28th Yankee player? Obviously not, but it reads this way.
 * "Jeter's presence in the Yankees' lineup, highlighted by his hitting prowess, played an instrumental role in the team's late 1990s dynasty." How can a presence be highlighted by his ability? And dynasty is sports journalese and not encyclopaedic.
 * Lots of "he has" in the lead makes it a little repetitive.
 * "and has a reputation as a reliable contributor in the postseason." This does not really link with the first half of the sentence. And a reliable contributor of what?
 * The whole last paragraph of the lead needs to say something like "as of", per WP:DATED.
 * "spent their summers with their grandparents in New Jersey": Did they not already live in New Jersey? In that case, it's not a big deal to stay in New Jersey.
 * "…who took them to Yankees games, making him a passionate fan of his future team." I know what is intended here, but it is clumsy. What about "Jeter became a passionate fan of the Yankees, his future team, when his grandparents took him to see their games."
 * "Jeter was inspired to play baseball by Hall of Famer Dave Winfield." By watching him? By speaking to him? By being coached by him? By meeting him?
 * "Jeter was scouted heavily by Hal Newhouser…" How is someone scouted heavily? Maybe extensively?
 * The second part of this paragraph on the scouting does not link to the information about Newhouser. Rather than mention the scholarship, would it be better to mention here that the Astros passed on him?
 * "In 2004, he said that he intends to attend college in the future." I don't think this is needed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've been beaten to the punch on this point, but I find it worth re-noting. After just reading the lead I found it to be very time-sensitive and likely to get quickly dated (a lot of stuff that would require "as of" modifiers. Instead of focusing on his progress through his career, noting some off the field stuff, it was mostly a few paragraphs of his accomplishments, many of which could be dated. The lead alone needs a rewrite to make it a summary of the player rather than his records and accomplishments. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will get on these comments by Sarastro1 and Wizardman today. I hope to see if I can switch that Oppose to a Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived? Closed? Are you serious? There is no time limit on FA nomination that I've ever seen, and I've been working on this page today. This is still active as far as I'm concerned. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have added a little context to the section on the controversy over Jeter's fielding. If it were up to me it would be expanded further but that is probably because I am a stat head who needs to get a life. However, there is a conflict between this section and the lead. The lead says: "Jeter's clubhouse presence, on-field leadership, hitting ability, defensive prowess and baserunning have made him a central figure of the franchise during the Yankees' success of the 1990s and 2000s." However, as the section on his defense indicates many experts believe that Jeter contributed to the Yankees success in spite of his defensive limitations, rather than because of his defensive prowess. I realize you are following the source you cite, but given the long running controversy over Jeter's fielding range I think you have to at least add a qualifier following that sentence to reflect the fact that other sources disagree about his defensive contribution. This might not be a bad thing, since the debate over his defense has become prominent enough to merit a mention in the lead anyway, and that would also serve to make the tone of the lead a little less hagiographic, which is currently a bit of a problem. Incidentally, I agree this closure was ridiculously premature. This article is not that far away from FAC quality.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True, that defensiveness thing is a discrepancy. I added it to the lead this morning. It's backed up by the source, but I was questioning it myself and thinking about rewriting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.