Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mariano Rivera/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:28, 14 June 2009.

Mariano Rivera

 * Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it became a Good article and received a peer review, and suggested changes were accordingly made to the article. It is well-sourced and well-written, covers the person's life in career in detail but is general enough for a casual reader to enjoy. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are my comments. A lot of them are just suggestions... stuff I couldn't figure out how to fix myself.
 * "he was converted to closer" - is there any way to avoid passive voice here? For example did Joe Torre decide to convert him to a closer? Passive voice in the first paragraph just jumps out at me.
 * Related to the above item, you might avoid using technical terms like setup pitcher and closer in the intro? This will appear on the main page and most readers won't know what those terms mean. I don't see any convenient way around this though so I don't expect it to be addressed unless someone has a good idea.
 * Does the intro have to have so many inline citations? I was under the impression that citations were not needed in the intro if the claims were cited in the main body of the article. Currently it's a bit distracting, they are quite densely present.
 * Other than the use of technical terms, the intro's wording is very good and does just what an intro needs to do in a FA.
 * "In 1990, a 20-year-old Rivera, then a shortstop, volunteered to pitch for his Panamá Oeste team" - I follow baseball and even I don't know what is meant by "his Panamá Oeste team". Can this be clarified?
 * "Yankees' management reportedly made a trade offer of Rivera to the Seattle Mariners for Randy Johnson, but the Mariners rejected the deal" - The way this is worded might suggest the Yankees were very down on Rivera and just wanted to get rid of him, it might be a good idea to clarify that Randy Johnson at this time was a premier pitcher to be trading for?
 * "There were concerns that the disappointment of the previous season's end would affect Rivera's performance in the future" - too vague, a FA should probably define who was concerned. Yankees management, fans, sportwriters, all of the above?
 * "Rivera won his third consecutive World Series title" - is it proper to say he won his WS title when the WS is a team championship? "helped the Yankees win their third..." sounds better to me, but I'm not sure.
 * "Rivera signed a two-year contract extension" - missing details, shouldn't this give the dollar value of the extension?
 * "began their historic comeback" - this doesn't explain why the comeback was historic. It was because no team had ever come back from 0-3, right?
 * The 2007-2008 section is a bit problematic. First of all, these years were not quite as notable as his earlier years, but this section is the longest of any - suggesting issues with recentism. Second, despite the length, it doesn't mention his 2007 postseason performance. Some trivia like "Rivera also became the first pitcher since 1975 to successfully convert his first 22 save opportunities without allowing any runs in those outings" could probably go. Recentism is a major problem in sports articles... Wikipedia didn't exist or at least wasn't very popular in Rivera's best years, but that doesn't mean we should have longer sections for his more recent years simply because people wrote more content about Rivera in those years.
 * Other than recentism, my biggest concern is that many terms and phrases used in this article ("Moved him into the bullpen", "blew three of his first six save opportunities") will render much of this article baffling to non-baseball fans. I imagine a non-fan reviewer will be along to address that though, so just wait for them... I can't be unbiased about baseball.
 * All in all it's a good baseball biography article. Fixing the recentism issues might require removing some sentences, but I think it will result in a better article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try and tackle your suggestions one at a time as I can get to them. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback - I'll try and fix some of the immediate things you just brought up. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if converting him to closer was Joe Torre's decision alone - it seems as though mangement decided to let Wetteland walk because they saw a star reliever in Rivera. I thought rather than get too specific in the lead, it would be better to take the emphasis off of who made the decision to move him to a different role. I'll try and look into if any one particular "actor" had the ultimate decision. Sounds like management purposely did not sign Wetteland because they wanted Rivera as closer. This has been fixed.
 * I thought as long as you Wikilinked it, you could include unfamiliar terms. In any case, setup man is something that could be removed if people disagree with it - I included it to differentiate his 1996 and 1997 years as a reliever. However, I definitely think the term "closer" needs to be kept in the lead, since I would think someone can infer the meaning of the word, not to mention his name is used in certain context to infer someone can "close" or "get the job done" (e.g. "he's the Mariano Rivera of the golf world"). I kept the words "closer" and "setup man" Wikilinked, but I also expanded what innings they had Rivera pitching.
 * I didn't know what the guidelines were for citations in leads, but I found them: The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Looks like we can vet individual citations and see if they are necessary or not. Citations for less challengeable material have been removed.
 * I think Panama Oeste (Spanish for West) was just the name of his team. I can fix that to be a little clearer. Reworded
 * I can reword the trade offer to point out Big Unit's significance, but I think mentioning a trade offer will still retain the "down on Rivera" sentiment no matter how you word it. Reworded
 * Will try to reword who was concerned based on what I see in the citation. The coaching staff was concerned. I've fixed this.
 * Will try to reword ownership of the World Series title. I reworded to say the 2000 title was the team's 3rd consecutive, but I had to use a possessive pronoun for Rivera to explain it was his 4th championship.
 * Dollar value was around $20 million for the 2 years - I'll get a citation for it. Was actually $21 million, but fixed.
 * The significance of the Red Sox comeback was mentioned before, but somewhere along the line, it was removed for concerns of POV or concentrating too much on the series outcome. But you're right, the reason the comeback was historic should be explained. Fixed
 * I'll have to take a step back and try and weed out stuff in 2007-2008 that isn't significant enough. Did a little bit of revising - let me know how it looks.
 * Back to my earlier explanation - does Wikilinking unfamiliar terms make their inclusion OK? I tried to explain that moving to the bullpen meant Rivera was becoming a full-time reliever. Blown saves are a real baseball statistic, and you can kind of infer the meaning - it would more wordy to say it a different way. Any other ones?
 * Comment on tables You have different table srtyles in different sections. Consistency would be more aesthetic. In particular, however, the tables in the Career Stats section actually kinda make my eyes hurt (I'm not being a smart aleck; I'm serious). There's no visual separation between them.. no borders, no whitespace.. and it's a bit difficult for me to separate them. Could you do something about these format issues, please? tks. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Career Statistics table? I'm not sure what's wrong with it, or what "them" is referring to. The columns? The rows? Maybe you could mock something up in a sandbox page to show me what you would do with it? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon further inspection, I think I see what you meant - can you give the Career Statistics table another look? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by TonyTheTiger
 * Personally, I would link scout (sports). I linked shortstop on your behalf.
 * Can you mention the leagues for the Greensboro Hornets, Ft. Lauderdale Yankees, Tampa Yankees, Albany-Colonie Yankees and Columbus Clippers.
 * Clarify what level Greensboro Hornets and Ft. Lauderdale Yankees were.
 * In the highlight box, I would add 3x AL Saves leader.
 * Do you have any minor league statistical detail?
 * Are his full minor league stats avaiable online? I want to look at them before clearing this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stats are available here: Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could probably summarize his minor league career with an aggregate won-loss record, minor league ERA, inning, strikeout and walk totals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would lumping all the stats together for his entire minor league career be a good idea, since they were across different levels of competition? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In truth, the individual years are not that impressive compared to other guys who were minor league all-stars and such. Thus, it is difficult to expand upon his minor league career without doing a lot of detailed research.  Optimally, I would like a minor league section like Chris_Young_(Baseball_pitcher) for a featured article although some might feel that is too in depth.  It does not seem that you really have done the highest level of research on his minor league years.  I think because he has accomplished so much at the major league level, you might look and say nothing he did in the minors is important any more.  It would help the reader to have some detail.  Absent of that the best cover up is an aggregate summary.  I am still not enthused with the lack of detail.  Usually guys move up for doing well.  You should be able to document this at most levels of minor league play, but you do not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went into a little more detail on his minor league career, with some statements about how he was viewed as a prospect, as well as some more stats. Please let me know what you think. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is much better, but you have to do something about that one-line paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Integrated it into the first paragraph of the "legacy" section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am talking about "Rivera began the 1995 season with the Columbus Clippers,..."
 * Was he ever a minor league all-star? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I misunderstood you. I integrated that sentence into the section's other paragraphs. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon first usage, you should say American League Divisional Series (ALDS) as opposed to jumping in with an undefined acronym. Same with ALCS.
 * I still see ALDS in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, must have missed it. Fixed now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All citations should follow punctuation and not alphanumeric text.
 * Do you have a citation for "Rivera was carried on the shoulders of his teammates during the celebration." --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My response to TonyTheTiger's comments:
 * Linked scout (sports)
 * Mentioned the leagues for all minor league affiliates.
 * Mentioned the level of all minor league affiliates.
 * Added 3x Major League saves leader (both times he led the AL, he led the Majors).
 * Added a few minor league stats. Let me know if this is still insufficient.
 * I do not know if he was a minor-league All-Star - I've never seen it mentioned in all the sources I've read through.
 * I had already mentioned the long-form of the Division and Championship series before using the acronyms, but just be on the safe side, I've removed all usage of the acronyms.
 * All citations follow a period, comma, or semi-colon.
 * Added a citation to ESPN game recap for him being carried on his teammates shoulders.
 * Thanks for the comments. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that nothing is mentioned about the change in mangement because Rivera made a fuss over Joe Torre leaving if I recall. I think he threatened free agency in part because of the Torre move.  I also think there was a story about Rivera not liking the changes in ownership as George passed control to his sons.  These may be parts of the same story, but you've got to flesh it out. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find "as he is the only pitcher to remain tenured as closer for the same team since 2002" confusing since he has been the closer for a much longer period. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed to say 1997. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we lost a fact with the change. I think it should say something like, he is not only the only reliever tenured with the same team since 2002, but also he has been tenured with the Yankess since 1997 in that role. or something similar that retains both facts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will need to get a reference for him being the only reliever since 2002 on the same team (I got that year from somewhere, but I can't recall where). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you making any progress on this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any reference that says he's the only reliever since 2002 on the same team, but I did rephrase the sentence to say his tenure as closer is 6 years longer than any other active closer, and that is tied as having the longest active pitching tenure with any team. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support my concerns have all been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments -
 * What makes http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/2/27/769395/mariano-s-gonna-cut-you-ev a reliable source?
 * Current ref 91 (Olney) needs a page number
 * Okay, so this is the excerpt that's on ESPN? Probably need to make it clear that you're not using the book but just the excerpt on ESPN, perhaps something like: ?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My response to Ealdgyth's comments:
 * Removed the citation and used a combination of 3 refs already in use to show a different speeds being cited.
 * I don't have the physical copy of the book available, so I don't know the page number. But the actual Epilogue is freely available on ESPN.com, and it's linked to in the reference.
 * Thanks for the comments. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go! All done. Have fun at FAC in the future! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 8 (from Birth of a Dynasty) is also from a book, and should be handled similarly to the Olney cite. If a page number is needed for either of these books, please let me know because I happen to have both of them. Also, reference 76 needs an access date.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the Birth of a Dynasty reference mirror the Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty reference in formatting. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – I'm a Yankees fan, so I can't possibly be objective with this one. After reading the article again following my participation in the peer review, one thing stuck out at me: there is really nothing on how important Rivera was during the team's run of three consecutive World Series championships from 1998 to 2000. Many in the media have argued that he was the most important factor in the Yankees' success. That is an important part of his legacy, and perhaps deserves some mention in the appropriate season summaries. Other than that, I still think the article could use a copy-edit to improve the writing and clean up all the baseball jargon. Good luck with the FAC, as it's nice to see something here that brings back fond memories from when I was growing up.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose . The season summaries are pretty good and give a decent narrative of his career, but there is a lack of material tying his entire career together and putting it in perspective amongst other closers.  The legacy section quotes several people that have named him the best closer of all time, but the article does not demonstrate how his statistics in that role measure up to both his contemporaries and other relief pitchers throughout baseball history.  The accomplishments section does this a little bit in list form, but it does not go far enough and should probably be partially integrated into the prose as well.  Without some of this big picture analysis, the article is not comprehensive. Indrian (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good point - I may have missed out on the "big picture" by trying to tone down the positive language in the Legacy section. I've updated it and tried to put his career into perspective. Please review it and give me your feedback. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is much better. I will have to do a comprehensive readthrough of the article tomorrow to make sure I have no other problems before I change my vote, but this satisfies the objection above. Indrian (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has come a long way thanks to some dedicated editors. Not quite ready to throw my support behind it yet, but I don't want to block it with an oppose either. Indrian (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to address this in the season summaries, but I ended up putting the most important information in the "Legacy" section. The 1997-2001 season summary goes into some details about this postseason success with the Yankees, while the "Legacy" section tries to tie a bow around his career as a whole. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support looks okay to me now. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looking over the article again, another issue comes to mind. For Rivera's early adult baseball career, we come in at what appears to be the middle; his volunteering to move from shortstop to pitcher for Panama Oeste.  There is no material linking the receipt of his first real glove at 12, the last piece of baseball information given, to that moment.  Was Panama Oeste an amateur team?  Was it affilitated with a league, business, or other organization?  When did Rivera begin playing organized ball as opposed to his game of milk cartons and sticks?  This hole should really be filled if possible. Indrian (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried as much as possible to fill this hole. Please review and let me know. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. It's not bad, but it needs work. I found lots of prose problems just in the first couple sections, along with MoS problems that indicate the article has never been audited for MoS compliance. These are prerequisites for FAC. I've listed some sample issues below; please get a fresh copyeditor to go through the entire text and look for more.
 * "he is the Major Leagues' all-time postseason leader" There are more than one?
 * I don't understand what the problem is. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "feared by Major League hitters" Hm, a bit too sportscaster-ish.
 * Rephrased. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "a line of work that did not pay very well" By American standards or by Panamanian standards?
 * Rephrased. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "They would also play baseball in the streets by substituting milk cartons for gloves, tree branches for bats, and taping beat-up baseballs." The grammar is wrong here. You've used "taping beat-up baseballs" as the final item in a series of things that have been substituting. If you remove the first two, you have "by substituting taping beat-up baseballs" which obviously doesn't work. Requires revision.
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rivera worked on a commercial shrimping boat on which his father was captain, working 12-hour days." Ungainly "worked ... working". Why not just "Rivera worked 12-hour days on a commercial ..."?
 * Rephrased. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rivera never dreamed of taking up the profession ..." Far too colloquial, the tone is more "magazine" than "encyclopedia".
 * Rephrased. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * MoS problems with logical quotations.. see WP:LQ.
 * Should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In uses such as "Yankees' tryout camp" and "Yankees' director", you can safely eliminate the apostrophe thereby turning the word from a possessive into an adjective. It looks and reads much nicer.
 * Fixed. There were some cases where no changes were made ("Yankees' title run", "Yankees' closer"), but otherwise, this should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "only allowing 24 baserunners" Move the "only" further right to get the intended meaning.
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "while only walking 36 batters" Ditto.
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "but this caused nerve damage to his throwing elbow instead" This is a wreck. Avoid using the ambiguous "this" in reference to something previous. This what? Also, the "instead" is redundant.
 * Rephrased. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, don't link the years in the article to " in baseball". See MOS:UNLINKYEARS.
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSNUM violations ("to make 2 abbreviated starts")
 * Fixed. In some cases, I had to leave some numbers as they were (7 ⅔; 1, when used with other numerals for statistical purposes), but this was only done in instances of certain baseball statistics. Otherwise, it should be fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the article explain why the Red Sox fans gave him a standing ovation? (Sorry, just kidding, couldn't resist :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows: Other Images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rivera2.jpg: as stated by the templates, a local admin should check the local file's history on what license the image was first supplied with.
 * Verified that it was originally uploaded with the "with disclaimers" version of GFDL-self. —TKD  [talk]  [c] 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Too many issues at the moment.


 * "he was a considered a "fringe prospect" at best" by who?
 * Reference is not specific, but it's pretty obvious as a baseball fan that those evaluations come from baseball scouts - fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Say it's from a scout then.


 * "Rivera had begun to throw at 95–96 MPH in the minors" reader may not know what "MPH" means.
 * The first time the word "miles-per-hour" is used in the article (throwing 87-88 miles-per-hour), it is wikilinked, not abbreviated, and followed by the abbreviation, thus making it unnecessary to spell the phrase out in every subsequent instance (such as the one above). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One instence of spelling it out isn't really enough.
 * Yes it is according to basic rules of grammar and style, which state that once one spells out an abbreviation once, one does not have to do so again in the work. Otherwise, there would be no point to abbreviating at all.  Also, the article is not written for a three-year-old, so really if someone cannot figure out what MPH means from the clues already given in the article it is not really our problem.  In other news, some of our readers may not know what the word "professional" or the word "success" in the first paragraph of the article means as well.  Maybe we should include links to dictionary entires for every word in the article? Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "essentially shortening the games for their opponents by three innings" sounds a little POV
 * But that is what they did, isn't it? For readers that don't know what the importance of having a shutdown bullpen is, this should get the point across. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't literally shorten the game so some people may find this confusing.
 * Right, it does not litreally shorten games, it essentially shortens games, which is exactly what the article says, backed up by evidence in the article that the team lost only 3 games in which they led after six innings. Give the readers of wikipedia articles some credit. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The sub setions for the "Major leagues" section seem a bit odd. 2 years, 5 years, 3 years, 2 years, 2 years and less than a year. Whats the logic behind them?
 * Trying to keep each section balanced in the amount of prose it has. I can divide up the years a little more evenly, though, if that is not important. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've alway felt with team sports players, the only time a new section in needed is when they change teams.
 * While I agree with you that sorting by years is arbitrary, your suggested solution clearly does not work for a player that has spent fifteen years with the same team. The FA style rules clearly demand breaking an article into more subheadings than that. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "They subsequently installed Rivera in the role of the Yankees' closer for the 1997 season." link "closer".
 * Unnecessary - closer is already linked in the section on 1996 when describing John Wetteland. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again one instance isn't really enough.


 * "Eventually, Rivera settled into his new duties" how?
 * This is explained by the rest of the sentence - he pitched well enough to be an All-Star and finish with respectable stats. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "one of the league's premier starting pitchers" this is POV.
 * How is it POV to call Randy Johnson, 4x Cy Young winner and one of the greatest pitchers ever, a premier starting pitcher? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You think he's "a premier starting pitcher" others may not.
 * Wow, this comment is so ridiculous it is almost hard to respond to, but I will give it a shot. Wikipedia policy on POV states that wikipedia must represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" [emphasis in original]  Now, do you really think that there is a sinlge source that meets that criteria that does not think Randy Johnson is a premier pitcher.  Go ahead, bring one here.  Find a significant viewpoint, one that has gained scholarly support from a distinguished group of experts, that says Randy Johnson was an overrated or non-premire pitcher.  I'll wait right here.  Oh, what, you could not find one?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  Seriously, NPOV does not mean one avoids using superlatives when they have been earned. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "but he soon put any such concerns to rest." needs a ref.
 * This is explained in great detail by the summaries of his 1998, 1999, and 2000 seasons. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not much on the 2001 season considering he went to the world series that year.
 * Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "2005 season turned out to be, at that point in Rivera's career, his greatest year" how exactly?, he didn't win the world series. Best in terms of stats maybe, but greatest?
 * Rephrased as "greatest individual statistical year". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillén announced in advance that he would use Rivera to close the 2006 All-Star Game" reader might wonder why the Chicago White Sox manager is using him when he plays for the Yankees.
 * I'm not sure what the problem is? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If he plays for the Yankees, why is the White Sox manager using him?
 * It is not really the job of this article to explain the intricacies of the All Star game. If the reader is curious about the issue you raised, he can go to the page on the all star game himself. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Despite struggles in non-save situations" what struggles exactly?
 * A bunch of losses and a higher ERA, but I removed specific stats because of "recentism". I don't think this needs to be expanded. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Rivera threw the final pitch in the venue's history, retiring the Baltimore Orioles' Brian Roberts on a ground-out." I don't mind this being mentioned, but I think that's a bit too much detail for what is basicly triva.
 * The historical value of this piece of info is too great to shorten, though. In the thousands of games and tens of thousands of innings of baseball that took place at Yankee Stadium, Rivera was the last pitcher to record the last out in a game in the venue. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "with perhaps the best season of his career" why "perhaps"?
 * Not all his stats from 2008 were better than 2005 (e.g. innings pitched, ERA). Even though I think it was his best year, I can't make a judgment call for this article and say 2008 was definitely his best. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "sports writers and baseball experts anticipate Rivera will be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility, once he retires." Do they say why?
 * ... because the same writers call him one of the best closers ever? I'm not sure why this needs clarification. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the stats in the "Career highlights" section do not have refs.
 * Not all career highlights need references, as some of them have Wikilinks that take you to a separate article with the highlight already listed (e.g. World Series MVP - an article is already dedicated to the history of this award). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it has a ref in another article it still needs a ref in this one.


 * No refs in "Career statistics" section.
 * Stats are from Baseball-Reference, but I can put a specific ref right after the "Current as of" text. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a bit of a neglect to non-baseball fans throughout this article, such as the large use of abbreviation. I would get someone who know nothing about the sport to proof read it.
 * Unfamiliar baseball terms are all Wikilinked in their first mention, and the importance of certain awards is explained. Furthermore, I went to great lengths to explain Rivera's place and history and the importance of his statistical rankings in the "Legacy" section. You should point specific portions of the article that need fixing. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a baseball fan so I can't do the proof reading for you. You will have to fing someone else. With baseball terms, a link in the first instance isn't really enough, also, if you can, you want to keep the reader on the same page, rarther than forcing them to go elsewhere, they may not come back.

BUC (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate BUC taking the time to look through this article and discovering several areas that still needed improving to get it up to FA status, but at the same time I am disheartened by other points that are listed here that would actually hurt the article if they were implemented. I am unsure why BUC feels that a three-year-old with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is the target audience for this article and therefore wants to remove all sophistication from it by needlessly sidetracking to define every last word or concept in the article and therefore completely bog it down with tangents.  I may be a baseball fan, but I have read baseball books and articles intended for all age levels and all levels of knowledge of the game, and most of them use just as many abbreviations as this one because concepts like American League (AL), earned run average (ERA), and most valuable player (MVP) are relatively simple and, once defined, need not be spelled out every time they are used to needlessly lengthen the article.  This is just good writing, period.  I have addressed certain other specific points above.  I feel it really would be a shame if an article that has steadily grown in quality over the last month had to take a small step backwards at the whims of a single user to gain the featured status it is close to deserving.  Indrian (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.