Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hobey Baker/archive3


 * 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 GrahamColm 13:52, 29 September 2012.

Hobey Baker

 * Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This article was previously nominated for FA last year, but failed due to copyediting concerns and the like. Well a year has passed, and it has gone through a peer review, so I'm hoping it will make it through this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * SupportA great article, that deserves to be featured.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Skimmed it, and I have to ask - what's the final paragraph of "Death" trying to say? Do they think it was some sort of suicide? If the sources do, you might as well just put it out there. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified that, so it makes more sense. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Contraction shouldn't be there in "As the Princeton hockey team didn't have its own hockey arena...". Also a redundancy with two "hockey"s in there.
 * Post-university years: Why does it mean that "the constant physical focus opposing him on the ice had taken its toll"? Does that mean that opponents were targeting him? If so, it seems more readable to just say some version of that.
 * World War I: There should probably be an en dash in "Yale-Princeton" in the first paragraph of the section.
 * In the photo caption here, for consisteny I'm thinking that "World War One" would be better as "World War I".
 * Death: "The model of plane Baker was flying...". Needs "the" before "plane".
 * Space needs removal before reference 60.
 * Ref 60 has a formatting error.
 * The full Falla cite has a busted ISBN link. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Took care of all this. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – All of my comments have been taken care of, and I'm satisfied that the article meets all of the FA criteria. It has improved substantially from the last time it was at FAC. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 03:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * In addition to Giants's points:
 * "Scott then began a relationship with an American diplomat in Paris, Philander Cable. These two events gave Baker a lack of direction in his life; he dreaded going back to work in an office and considered himself a sportsman rather than a businessman.": How did the gay (I assume) relationship create a lack of direction in his life ... or was it his aversion to office work that did that? What does a "lack of direction" look like, that is, what was the evidence for it?
 * "This went against tradition and superstition for pilots, as a final flight was usually fatal." If true, then it wasn't superstition ... but my guess is it wasn't true. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote inside another quote inside a text box probably isn't a good idea. If the "In heavy rain" part is a quote, it would probably be better to paraphrase that part ... it isn't particularly quote-worthy ... so that you can draw attention to the blockquote, and probably leave it the way I had formatted it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have everything here cleared up. As for the quote issue, that was simply me rushing through things without actually noticing what I was doing. Is all good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "This went against tradition and superstition for pilots, as a final flight was only used in regards to one that killed the pilot.": I don't know what that means; what does the source say? Everything else looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I modified the wording around, but am not sure on my part. If you want a go at it, I'll leave the relevent wording from the source here: "...violated both tradition and superstition. "One last flight," in pilot's lore, was feared to be just that." If you like it, the better. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, my call would be to cut it, and I did. That quote doesn't seem to be clear on the point.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * FN60: formatting
 * Falla: formatting
 * Falla ISBN is incorrect, should be 9780470153055. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed all these here. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Comments: This article has improved enormously since I reviewed it at GA last year, and I think it is pretty close to meeting the criteria. However, for an article with three supports, there are quite a few issues, including a typo for "twelve" which I fixed. There are a few parts which are hard to understand, or where some odd phrasing is used. There is also some redundancy in the prose, and a couple of long sentences. None of these issues are a big deal in themselves, but I think they need to be addressed one way or another. However, this is generally great work, and I will be happy to switch to support once they have been cleared up or clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "after a plane he was test piloting crashed": Should this be "test-piloting". Or could we just have "piloting" in the lead?
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * A few instances of "considered" and "regarded" in the lead. I generally prefer something more concrete, such as "X called him…" and "Y believed that he was…" but this may just be a personal preference. I do think that "considered" and such words are a little weak.
 * I think I agree ... when it doesn't have a ref that nails it down in one click, so I've copied the ref from the Legacy section (to the Hockey Hall of Fame, which presumably can be trusted on this point). I also agree that "considered" is sometimes overused, but it's used in exactly one phrase in this article (a phrase that's borrowed in the lead). If this were an article on Balkan politics, then we'd want to say exactly who said what, and probably state their credentials. For an undisputed evaluation of a much-loved hockey star, saying that one guy said he was great would undermine the point. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Striking. It's complicated, but I'll try to comply with this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My main issue is that it is weak, but I know this is tricky in sport articles. My own approach to this is to try to use a quote or paraphrase from a "definitive authority", and otherwise use press/commentators/critics. Which is not much better and gets repetitive! So I'm not sure what the answer is, and I'm fine with any solution or leaving it unchanged. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment here by Dank. If this is perceived as a problem, I think the best way forward is to try to provide enough citations in the body to indicate that various people share whatever sentiment is indicated. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph has one source in the lead and body: the Hockey Hall of Fame. Providing another source in the body that verifies these claims would go a long way toward backing the "regarded" and "considered" bits. They don't bother me that much, but I see that they can be made stronger with a little work. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added something there to note who thought he was good. I have a preference to try and keep footnotes out of the leads in articles, as I find it makes the article look cleaner. In that regard I make an effort to have everything written there backed up within the article. If there is any more work needed, let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 1921, Princeton opened its hockey arena, named the Hobey Baker Memorial Rink in honor of Baker": Minor, fussy point, but maybe change the focus of the sentence a little: "In 1921, Princeton named its new hockey arena the "Hobey Baker Memorial Rink" in his honour."?
 * Agreed, and I went with something similar.
 * "Alfred, known as Bobby to his friends…": Do we need his nickname in an article on his son?
 * I'm not comfortable taking it out, if that's how he was known, especially since he was also an athlete and people might want to look him up ... but if Kaiser wants to take it out, fine.
 * I added it simply because the article mentions it specifically, and I figure that if they felt it pertinent to note, perhaps we should as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Malcolm Gordon, who was one of the first people to help develop hockey in the United States, was the coach of the school team and recognized Baker's skill; Baker was known by his classmates to be an exceptionally fast and agile skater": A very long sentence, even with a semi-colon, and I'm not sure that the two parts really go together. Also, an overabundance of "was" here. Maybe just "Malcolm Gordon, one of the first people to help develop hockey in the United States, was the coach of the school team and recognized Baker's skill. Baker was known by his classmates to be an exceptionally fast and agile skater".
 * Removed "who was" and put in the period/full stop. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "He spent nights skating on frozen ponds to improve his ability to move with the puck while not looking down": How does skating help him to move the puck. And move how? Pick it up? I think we need some precision here. Maybe "He spent nights skating on frozen ponds, practising his ability to [better description of what he did; would "dribbling" work with hockey?]".
 * It's "practice" for both the noun and verb in AmEng. Any precise description that I can think of is going to sound juvenile to a sports fan: "He practiced hitting the puck back and forth with his stick" ... shudder. If anyone can think of something, I'm all ... eyes. [Inserted: maybe, to manipulate the puck while not looking down? Does that sound better?]
 * Sorry about the practice/practise; I'm afraid I occasionally lapse into BritEng! Please just ignore me if I do. On the phrasing: is there a word (such as dribbling) which describes this in hockey-speak? I think that would do it, particularly with a link. I don't think we should try to be too clever in finding a phrasing for non-sports people when we can just link something this simple. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The best I can think of is stickhandle, so I linked its Wiktionary definition. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "agreed to let his talented younger brother continue on…": Maybe an engvar thing, but "continue on" sounds odd here. Almost a tautology. Why not "continue in education".
 * "continue in education" doesn't work for me; it isn't idiomatic in AmEng, and suggests that maybe he went elsewhere. I went with "stay in school".
 * "By the time Baker left St. Paul's his sporting achievements had helped make him one of the school's most popular students.": I think we need a comma here somewhere.
 * You're right, because that fits best with the comma style of this article. Fixed. In general, I struggle to get people to include commas after 10- and 15-word introductory phrases. Sigh. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "He had been awarded…": Why not just "He was awarded…"?
 * Sure, why not. done.
 * "It was during the 1913–14 hockey season…": Why not just "During…"?
 * Stet. It provides a slight emphasis that's appropriate in context.
 * "Favored to win the game…" An odd expression. Why not just something along the line of "favourite" or "bookmaker's favourite", unless I'm missing a different meaning here.
 * It's not an "odd expression" in AmEng, it's the most common way to say it. I wouldn't want to use "favorite" in every case, but it's fine here. Done.
 * Sorry, I actually meant to type "favored by gamblers to win the game". It was the "by gamblers" which I thought sounded odd. Fixed now anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I follow, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Throughout the game Baker kept going offside…": Maybe "Throughout the game, Baker was repeatedly called offside…"
 * He probably did keep going offside, so I don't understand the objection.
 * To me "kept going offside" is a far less elegant construction than "called offside" or even "went offside". Nor do I think the use of "kept" in this sense sounds particularly good, and "repeatedly" or "continuously" sounds more professional, but this may be a personal style preference. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I get it, "keep" is distinctly AmEng. Okay, I'll go with your suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "the game ended regulation with a 1–1 tie…": I don't think the game ended anything! I think we need a link for regulation here, and maybe "regulation time ended with the score tied 1–1", or similar.
 * See below.
 * "the game ended regulation with a 1–1 tie, so two extra periods, lasting five minutes each, were held. These also ended in a draw, so the team captains agreed to a sudden death period": so … so
 * See below.
 * "Through sixty minutes of play, only five Harvard players and one Princeton player had been replaced by substitutes, and it was reported that Baker was not even breathing heavily at that point.": I'm struggling to see the point of this sentence, and in particular why the comment about not breathing heavily is included. If the point is that, in contrast to the other players, he was not tired, it should be made explicit.
 * It's both more precise and more evocative to say he wasn't even breathing heavily.
 * I'm not too sure why my quote from the article above has been changed to say "not even breathing heavily", which is the copy-edited version of the text, rather than "not breathing heavily" which was the original text. No matter, adding "even" does solve the issue I was attempting to explain.
 * Haha, I wondered about that ... I was sure that it didn't say "even" at first ... I must have edited this page rather than the article :) Okay, glad that fixed it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Twenty-three minutes into sudden death…": Should this not be in figures, per MOS?
 * MOSNUM requires (or used to require, I haven't looked lately) consistency. You didn't have a problem with twenty or sixty, so why with twenty-three? Looking through very quickly (I generally check as I'm editing), I see "92 points" and "63 yards", but I believe that's okay because of convention and because they're units (of a sort). Still ... we (at Milhist) are generally pretty easy-going on number formats ... if you want some specific rule followed, tell me and I'll try to be consistent.
 * I didn't want to list all the instances of this, but I'm happy with this explanation. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I raised this back at the GA review, but I think the Princeton-Harvard game is too detailed. The response at the review was that, as the only full game in which his play is described, it tells us how Baker played. But all it seems to tell us about him is that he kept being offside and was not breathing heavily at the end of regular time. I don't think this really tells us much about him. If he made a match-winning contribution, that would be different, but as it stands, I don't see the need for all that detail.
 * Saying that he was offside is an elegant way of saying that he couldn't keep himself from outdistancing the other players. I talked about "breathing heavily" above. Otherwise, I cut a lot ... I can see your point. Kaiser, I hope that's okay, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems much better. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "but Baker is estimated to have scored over 120 goals and 100 assists in three years": Who is estimating? (Fitzpatrick, judging from the ref for this sentence)
 * Kaiser, can you find out? It might be helpful, depending on what the source says.
 * Made a note of the estimate. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "As well as skill, Baker was known for his sportsmanship. In a hockey game against Harvard on January 22, 1913, Baker took the only penalty of his collegiate career, for slashing; Princeton lost the game 5–4 in overtime.": Possibly engvar problem here, but in British sports, if you take a penalty, you are the person who tries to score after the opposition have "fouled". But I assume from the rest of the sentence, that he was the person who caused the penalty to be taken. Maybe this could be clarified?
 * Gotta love sports jargon, in any country. Changed to "suffered". - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Through his Princeton classmates…" Perhaps (and presumably) "Through the influence of his Princeton classmates…"
 * That's a standard way to say it in AmEng. Is it really that opaque in BritEng?
 * Fair enough, not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Baker sought a better escape…": An escape from what? Better than what? An odd way to begin a section.
 * I went with "Looking for new adventures,". I didn't change "he", but some people prefer to restate the name in any new section (or new paragraph for that matter); I don't have a preference.
 * "Baker led a squadron of twelve aircraft, to have ever flown in military formation": Something missing here.
 * Oops, that might have been mine. Fixed.
 * "Though he managed to complete all the courses easily, Baker was discouraged to be sent to a school in England for training and then back to France to teach Americans what he had learned in England, in an attempt to create pilots as quickly as possible.": I think this came up at GA too, but I'm struggling to make sense of this, and how all these events connect together. Why was he sent back? Why was he discouraged? Why did he then teach Americans what he learned in England? What did he learn? Why was he sent back if he completed everything easily?
 * Kaiser, could you make it clearer that he was frustrated that he couldn't get back to flying?
 * I tried to clean it up. If it needs more work, let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The World War I section is longer than his sports career section. Is Baker particularly notable as a pilot? Apart from having a lot of information available, owing to his status as a sportsman I imagine, he does not seem to have had a war career out of the ordinary. In that case, do we need so much information? I'm not sure the balance of the article is right. Unless I'm missing something about his military career in the war.
 * Look at all the memorial stuff ... he is remembered as a war hero as often as he's remembered as an athlete ... in particular, the way he died is remembered. The balance seems right to me, although I wouldn't mind cutting a sentence here and there in the World War I section.
 * If his death is remembered, fair enough, but was the rest of his military career as well remembered? But more than happy to go with Dank if he is happy with this. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The military side of his life contributed to the overall legend of Baker. That and the fact that there is both a dearth of information regarding this part of his life, and how it all culminated in what some called a suicide, makes me reluctant to remove it. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "The model of the plane Baker was flying was easy to crash-land if necessary": was … was; missing comma? Also, "the model of the plane" suggests scale model to me, rather than what type of plane.
 * Good point; changed to "The plane was generally easy ..." The usual solution is to name the model of plane, but I don't know it here.
 * The death section seems to say that there were rumours he committed suicide. Where were these rumours? Were they published at the time. And "not accidental" seems to suggest foul play, but I don't think that is what is being said here. Maybe make it more explicit, if the sources are strong enough. If they are not, I'm not sure we should be hinting like this.
 * I had a problem with this too, although I didn't know what it was until now: we need to know where the rumors were being repeated ... if widely, in the press, then that's noteworthy enough. If people were whispering, it's not important enough for the article. If the paragraph stays, I'm fine with changing "not accidental" to "suicide". Kaiser?
 * I added a direct quote that pertains to this. However I don't have the Salvini book in hard copy at the moment, and have had to rely on the online version, which limits the amount of detail I can look at. As for the 1966 Davies book that I just added, I looked for a copy of that when originally expanding the article, and was unable to find a copy. Hopefully this helps though. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another "considered" in the legacy section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I talked about this above. Thanks kindly for your review. - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 Leaning support : I'm more than happy with the changes so far, and I struck my oppose as it was based more on the number of small issues than anything major. Just waiting for a response from the nominator on a last couple of issues before moving to full support. And anything Dank has addressed and I have not struck is not an issue for me and would not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly, great review. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I went though and addressed everything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Support: Happy to fully support now, great work. Disclaimer: I completed the GA review. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.