Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sam Fuld/1

Sam Fuld

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sam_Fuld/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist Consensus here is that the article does not meet the Good article criteria. The excessive use of quotations is still very much present AIR corn (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this article mainly because I feel it not neutral. The article portrays the subject, a baseball player with modest success in reality, with overwhelming positive comments and very little information about his struggles (negative stats or specific reasons why he was traded/cut). Some elements of the article are factual but presented in a biased manner - see Talk page: and  There are also multiple quotes in the body of the article that are never truly built upon or discussed in substance. The information is also out of date and does not have any updates after 2014. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I started trimming some of the overly detailed and non-neutral stuff. There are probably still too many quotes and there is probably undue weight on some very routine regular-season play, but I didn't want to act too drastically until others weighed in. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Shearonink
In general, if this article were given a good going over for copy-editing issues (some of that content really needs to be trimmed) I think it would still be of GA quality. The subject is notable and, obviously, a lot of work has been put into referencing. I do not think it should be delisted, I think it just needs some work. Bob Lemon as a present GA and Lee Smith (baseball) as a Featured Article, would both be worthwhile templates to work from as this article is improved. Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Information in article is not completely up-to-date. Fuld elected for free agency in November and is no longer with the A's (per MLB.Com)
 * Lead seems excessively-detailed. For example, all those lead quotes are from one season, one source.
 * I don't understand that odd "quote" box connected to Ref 115.
 * Recognition and awards section is completely unsourced.
 * Images seem ok.
 * In 2007 section and in 2009 section, direct links to multiple videos within main text - against MOS.
 * Too many scarequotes in lead, see WP:SCAREQUOTES
 * Agree with others - too much quoted material. I applaud the editors zeal for attributing information to sources but, in my opinion, some of these quote have got to go.