Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Dalkowski/archive1

Steve Dalkowski
Resubmitting this article. It was previously nominated but failed and has since gone through an extensive peer review which hopefully addressed all issues! Zerbey 05:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support All the issues have been resolved, the trivia section is gone, properly referenced, very informative article! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support looks good now that we've got a halfway decent photo. Way to go Zerbey ;)  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, looks much better now. JYolkowski 18:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised to find that he was born in Connecticut in 1938 and yet his actual date of birth was not recorded. Is this the case, or is it just omission by neglect? Everyking 21:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Working on that. Zerbey 22:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, neutral for now, support once it's added. Everyking 22:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's added. Zerbey 03:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Fun article, and perhaps the best first paragraph I've read in Wikipedia.  One thing that should maybe be addressed: the article says that his manager discovered he had an IQ of 60 by administering a test and that this result made him realize that Dalkowski needed simpler instructions.  I think an IQ of 60 means he's really retarded; wouldn't that have been obvious without a test?  Actually, a lot of the article sounds like folklore, and could be improved with more solid refs, but there's enough refs to convince me that it's at least mostly true.  Zashaw 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: IQ, the figure comes from multiple sources. An IQ of 60 is moderate retardation, see Mental retardation for more. Zerbey 00:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait: the picture says it's not to be distributed to 3rd parties. Doesn't this conflict with the GFDL, which should allow anything in Wikipedia to be copied?  Sorry in advance if I'm being ignorant...  Zashaw 00:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We have permission, see the talk page. Zerbey 00:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly however he's right, this image does go against the GFDL, and Wikipedias policy of allowing distribution. Although its a great image, this will eventually be deleted. To Quote from [Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags]:
 * General non-free licenses
 * Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies.
 * - permission is given for use on Wikipedia only, and does not include third parties.
 * You can claim fair use on this, since its related to him. Which does allow it to be kept, however Fair Use images are on shaky ground longterm also. Your best bet is to get them to release this to GFDL or CC-by-SA. Likely they will listen as this requires attribution of original source for reproduction. However a noncommercial restriction goes against Wiki's idea and written rule.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 00:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I don't see the BHOFL releasing it to the GFDL (not for free), I am still on the search for a free picture however. Zerbey 17:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this helps, but it might be relevant to them that the GFDL seems pretty restrictive; it seems like it'd be difficult for someone to use Wikipedia content for a commerical purpose (like an ad related to baseball, or an exhibit in a competing museum or whatever), given the requirements that it be editable, and that other people can use the content. I'm no lawyer, though.  Zashaw 22:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * They've made it clear that they will not release the picture, already had an e-mail conversation about this. Our hope lies in finding some other person with a free picture. Zerbey 22:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Giano 07:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done. Object. The lead section should be a better summary of the article. Currently it only mentions the speed and lack of control and a film about him. Something about his life and life after baseball would be important. Also, isn't calling Randy Johnson a future hall of famer a little POV? I think it is unless that is absolutely unamimous opinion. If it is, so be it. Otherwise article seems fine, though avoiding the three one or two sentence paragraphs it now has would help the article flow. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * All fixed, Randy Johnson will almost definitely be a hall of famer one day (especially if he helps us win the series this year!) but he isn't yet.
 * Well he is considered a great in the game, so if you can find a simple source supporting that claim, the reference to him would be better if it kept at least something directly explaining he is considered a great player for those that don't already know. But, yes I think it is better without saying he is something he is not for sure. - Taxman 16:08, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. This has much improved since the previous nomination, nice work. Jeronimo 21:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm. Reluctant objection.   Gee, there is a lot of prevarication here with regards to pitching speed.  In various places we have "experts estimate", "may have", "likely to be exaggeration", "observers agree" etc. etc. but the only real data presented supports none of the estimated numbers given, and none of the "experts" are named or their relationship to the guy explained.  I'd really like to see this tightened up some more, and some attention given to the difference between what is known and what is folkloric.  Also shouldn't the US variants on words be used in an article on baseball?  Jgm 00:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is pointed out in the article ("How fast did Dalkowski throw") that there is no direct evidence of him being able to pitch 100mph+ beyond the anecdotal, some quotes are given. Continuing research is going on to find out more anecodotal evidence, so it is in progress :)
 * I wrote a lot of this article, I'm British (yep, a British baseball fan) and received a British education so please forgive me if there's some British-English stuff in there. User:Michael Snow did a good job of converting the article to US standards but that was a while ago so more may have crept in.  Please provide specific concerns and they will be addressed.  Is this really that big of a deal, though??? Zerbey 01:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)