Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jimmy McAleer


 * 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Jimmy McAleer
I'm nominating this sports biography for featured article because it is fairly comprehensive, well presented, and includes loads of references. The piece draws on a range of sources, including primary sources. Recently, it benefited from the feedback of several reviewers, and I think it now meets, or approaches, FA standards. I look forward to your comments and recommendations! Thank you, -- twelsht (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Two of three reviewers encouraged me to take this article directly to the FAC, while the third recommended the GAC. I took steps to address the concerns of the third reviewer. First, I added headings to better organize material on McAleer's varied career. Secondly, I expanded a section on his years as a baseball player. Finally, I highlighted a reference to McAleer's initiation of a venerable baseball tradition. In response to other comments, I added material on his early years and personal life, while weaving in more statistical data. I should mention that this article draws heavily on primary sources, including old newspaper articles. It does not rely exclusively on material available online. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it should be Sports E-Cyclopedia, not Sports Encyclopedia. Also, are these websites the most reliable sources? Some of them look dubious...are there no better sources out there? I imagine there are plenty of books out there on the early years of baseball. Finally, make sure you have author information for your sources when they list it. The Christian Science Monitor article has a byline of the Associated Press. Budding Journalist 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Response Good call on the byline for The Christian Science Monitor. I amended the reference to show that it was an AP story. I also corrected the name of the Web site that was inaccurately rendered. Your point about the article's reliance on data from online sources is well taken. I would prefer to stick to print sources. Unfortunately, McAleer has become a relatively obscure figure, even though he was hailed upon his death as an architect of the American League. The early baseball sources I have on hand--Bill James' Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, Joel Zoss and John Bowman's Diamonds in the Rough, and Jerrold Casway's Ed Delahanty in the Emerald Age of Baseball--make little or no reference to McAleer. I may be able to weave in material from some of these sources to describe the atmosphere of Dead Ball Era baseball, but they won't help me to describe the career or personality of McAleer himself. That said, one-half of the references are drawn from print media. I refer extensively to an article published in McAleer's hometown paper (The Youngstown Vindicator) that includes an account of his fallout with Johnson that I've never read anywhere else. I also believe that most of the online references are from reliable baseball Web sites. The two links that strike me as questionable are connected to the Sports E-Cyclopedia site. I'll take steps to replace them. Thanks for the feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I am taking steps to replace some of the online references with references to texts. This will take a little time, but it should ease any concerns about the reliability of the source material. -- twelsht (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would add thedeadballera site as somewhat questionable as well. The "Jimmy McAleer and the 1912 World Series" article doesn't have the author either. Please make sure to go through all of the sources and add authors where available. Budding Journalist 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I eliminated all references to the thedeadballera site. These have been replaced with references to Dewey and Acocella's historical overview of U.S. baseball teams. This book includes lots of information on tactics employed by the Spiders' manager--some of which I incorporated into the article. I removed all material drawn from the deadballera site that was not also featured in the book. Finally, I reviewed online and hard copy articles to confirm that  bylines (where they exist) have been included in the reference. Thanks for catching these weaknesses and oversights. -- twelsht (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not ready for FA:
 * Article has POV sentences, like:
 * "McAleer's association with the game ended abruptly"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "an institution known regionally for its high academic standards"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "was surprisingly light on his feet and proved an asset to local baseball organizations"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "the club became closely associated with the sorts of aggressive tactics that damaged the reputation of the National League"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "McAleer's versatility as a player made him a valuable player"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "the beleaguered team was forced to cancel its home games due to poor attendance"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "Unable to build on this solid performance"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "earning a miserable seventh place"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "devastated by the mysterious death of star hitter"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "a memorable game in which McAleer initiated what became a venerable baseball tradition"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "proved to be one of the most contentious episodes of McAleer's career"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "McAleer, who was noted for his shrewdness, may have outwitted himself on this occasion."
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "it also left Boston's players disgruntled and demoralized"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "his deteriorating relationship with the American League's president, Johnson, took a turn for the worse"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "an incongruously cosmopolitan figure"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "cultivating players, officials, and others who became significant figures in major league baseball"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "going so far as to"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * "one of the most accomplished players of his era"
 * ✅ removed extraneous language
 * Not comprehensive, no Personal life section.
 * ✅ the article includes a substantial "Personal life" section
 * References 2 and 26 have formatting problems.
 * ✅ addressed
 * Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Response I was surprised by your comment that the article was loaded with POV language. Many of the statements you cited were supported by inline citations. Others were supported by sourced statements that appeared elsewhere in the article. It didn't strike me as extreme, for instance, to suggest that McAleer's career ended "abruptly." McAleer sold his stock in the Red Sox after a dispute with Ban Johnson--an incident that is well documented. I also felt that I was on safe ground when I suggested that McAleer's hiatus from baseball "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season." My reference supports this statement; it also confirms that the Spiders' 1899 season was the worst in the history of major league baseball. Please know that I did not intend to imply a causal relationship between McAleer's absence and the Spiders' poor performance, and I didn't suspect readers would assume that I had.


 * That said, the tone of the article could be more encyclopedic. To address your concerns, I took steps to remove all potentially inappropriate language. I even eliminated a SOURCED statement which described McAleer's alma mater as "an institution known regionally for its high academic standards." (This bothered me a little, because the school in question was only technically "public" at the time McAleer was enrolled. It was established through an endowment and had its own board of trustees.) In addition, I created a new section for the material on McAleer's personal life. I regret that this section is rather small. McAleer has not been the subject of a major biography, and he receives only a mention in books and articles dealing with the history of major league baseball. I hope these revisions address your concerns. Thank you for your feedback. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I feel a need to point out that the opposed reviewer has not responded to repeated invitations to revisit this article. Whether or not the reviewer's concerns were misrepresented (as POV issues), I found them actionable and took steps to address them. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I participated in the peer review of the article, and I disagree with the above assessment of the article:
 * I don't find any of the statements POV. They are statements supported by the references given.  WP:NPOV does not require that superlative statements or opinion are avoided entirely, merely that the opinion reflects the majority opinion as expressed by reliable sources.  These statements clearly reflect the opinions as given in the reference, and thus clearly show a neutral point of view, or in a few cases are patently obvious (like, for example, "miserable seventh place"... well, seventh place in an eight team league is self-evidently miserable.
 * Also, with regard to comprehensiveness, an article can only be as comprehensive as the existing scholarship. If there is no information on his personal life in reliable sources, this article cannot invent it.  The article reliably represents a comprehensive view of existing scholarship on this person.  Wikipedia cannot simply invent information where it does not exist.
 * Based on the fact that the article is comprehensive, well-written, neutral, ad scrupulously referenced, this is easily featured quality. I give it my full support.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not able to give a full review here at this time, but I'd like to say that phrases like "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season" and "proved to be one of the most contentious episodes of McAleer's career" are not POV. They are – as Jayron noted – assessments of the events based on the sources referenced. Adjectives do not automatically produce POV writing. Phrases which can be objectively examined (a team's worst season, for example) are the farthest thing possible from POV. Also: Perhaps it was added after you commented here, but the article does have a "Personal life" section. There's not much in it, since not much information is apparently available. There's only so much we can do about that. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Yet another thoroughly well-written, well-researched and engaging baseball article. twelsht's objective appears to have been to create a high-quality encyclopedic article (which has certainly been achieved) rather than—as has been bewilderingly suggested—to push a POV. I provided comments earlier on this article (which, as it turned out, didn't prove particularly useful) so I'm not entirely neutral :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, but please put en dashes, not hyphens in the scores (1–0). Check through the reliability of the references. No. 21, for example, has no author, and who is the owner of that site. Why should be trust it? Tony   (talk)  00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response I appreciate your feedback and support. After reading your comments, I put endashes in the scores and replaced an online reference with a textual reference. I'll take a closer look at all of the references to ensure reliability. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I am in the process of belatedly keeping a promise to copy-edit the article. This is an easy and enjoyable job. The current text has a particularly pleasing style. It is concise, informative, sourced but remains engaging. I think, in part, this is due to judicious selection of incidents and language from sources, that gently interact at the level of human interest, while being anchored in reliable, verifiable material. It is prose of a rare quality that informs without being dry. I support FA status for three reasons: one, it meets the criteria; two, it is a contribution of a standard Wiki can be proud to announce by FA that it accepts; and three, it is an example to all of us who contribute of what we can aim for. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I also enjoyed reading and copy-editing this article.  Although I usually find sports articles difficult reading, this one is engaging and well-written; it paints a vivid portrait of JM and his era, and the rowdier world of sports just before the turn of the 20th century.  The writing made even me come to care about Mr. McAleer, his choices, triumphs and disappointments.  The material is well-illustrated and referenced meticulously; the obituary for McAleer's musical second wife was an especially nice touch. Willow (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.