Wikipedia:Peer review/Walter O'Malley/archive1

===Walter O'Malley===

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at WP:FAC mostly for lack of having generated commentary. Thus, feedback is needed. I intend to incorporate information from several books that I have checked out from the Chicago Public Library, but the current article may have some problems that are causing people not to want to take an interest. I think maybe there may be some organizational issues that are keeping readers from getting into the article. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Walter O'Malley/archive1.


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are any major problems with the structure that affected interest, it's just that it's a biography about someone most people haven't heard of. Perhaps mention in your FA nomination he's the guy everyone in Brooklyn hated for moving the dodgers, that may help to spice it up a bit. The section heading being Dodgers is a little jarring because it doesn't tell you much about what he did with them. Maybe break up the sections to add how his role changes with the Dodgers in each heading or something. It's a biography so just saying Dodgers doesn't seem enough. Generally it looks ok, and hopefully Ruhrfisch can provide some more detailed comments as I know nothing about the subject. - Taxman Talk 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a lifelong Dodger fan who has never further west of the Mississippi than St. Louis, it never crossed my mind that O'Malley was unheard of by most people. I believe all baseball fans recognize the last name.  Most sports fans would.  I think sports fans are the primary audience for an article like this although lawyers, businessmen, Pennsylvanians and New Yorkers should also consider him interesting.  I will keep this in mind for FAC2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Brianboulton comments: I know even less than Taxman about baseball. I regret to say I've never heard of the Brooklyn Dodgers, let alone Walter O'Malley, so my points may seem simplistic. However, I am speaking from A UK perspective - please remember that baseball is practically unknown over here, where most people see it as a grown-up form of a playground game called Rounders.

I must say, although confused by much of the text, I did feel better informed on this novel topic by the end. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't find it easy reading, which is unsurprising given my ignorance of the topic. Here are just a few points picked up:-
 * Is it Dodgers or Dodger? You use both. The singlular form reads oddly in phrases like "Brooklyn Dodger chief legal counsel".
 * Although terms like Dodger Stadium and Dodger blue may lead you to believe otherwise, I think plural is correct and have made the proper correction, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Links requested for "leverage" and "franchise"
 * linked franchise and reworded leverage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "Early years" really the best title for a section which covers this much ground? Consider retitling?
 * I split it into two sections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Then, he attended..." implies direct continuity from previous sentence about a baseball accident. Better would be: "Later, he attended..."
 * Thanks. I put the preceding sentence in later without noticing how it affected the rest of the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume Penn is an abbreviation? Can you explain Phi Deuteron Charge?
 * I clarified Penn, but am not a frat guy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "and then he worked" in last sentence of 2nd para is immediately followed by "He then worked...", which reads awkwardly
 * I have changed his career around so much that I don't think this complaint still holds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The smoking sentence is trivial. And I know you like links, but - cigar??
 * I added more information about his smoking that makes this relevant. I removed the link since it bothers you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of the diminutive "Kay" is non-encyclopedic and familiar, unless she was generally known by this name, in which case you should introduce her as "Katherine (Kay)..."
 * I had noticed this and fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What does the phrase "more free-swing" actually mean?
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Negro ball-players" would not be accepted in a UK-published article
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He abolished the title of General Manager. What became of Buzzie Bravo?
 * "notoriety" means fame in a bad way. I think you mean something like "celebrity"
 * Changed to fame, I don't think the celebrity should be cast upon the franchise as a whole.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The likes of" King Feisal II? Who would these be - other mid-east monarchs? Perhaps rephrase
 * Rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't understand this sentence: "Since the meetings occurred during the 1957 season and against the wishes of Commissioner of Baseball Ford Frick, there was media gamesmanship".
 * Section heading "Retire from presidency" seems ungrammatical. Also, the section is mainly about something else.
 * Suggest "...as most villainous of twentieth century men"
 * Personally, I think the Pop Culture section detracts from rather than improves the article, and I don't think the timeline is necesary.

I posted these comments without noticing that Ruhrfisch had picked this article up for review. He may well cover some of the same ground, I am sure much more thoroughly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of the comments made above (although I understand baseball) and have some more suggestions for improvement: I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would treat the FAC comments as a really detailed peer review and when you think the article is as good as it can be, ask the FA reviewers to weigh in again - is it all better or does it still need work?
 * A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on structure, refs, etc. There are many FAs at Featured_articles and some may be useful models
 * I think the information is there for a FA (seems comprehensive) but it could use a good copyedit and some structral changes to improve flow.
 * Watch for needless repetition - for example in the lead He progressed from being a team lawyer to being both the Dodgers' owner and president, and he eventually made the business decision to relocate the Dodger franchise. Although he moved the franchise, O'Malley is known as a businessman ... "relocate the franchise" and "moved the franchise" seem needlessly repetitive - how about Despite the move, O'Malley is known as a businessman ... ?
 * Another examples is Nonetheless, after the transfer, the Dodgers remained successful under O'Malley: they won the National League pennants in 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1956. followed two paragraphs later by Despite having won the National League pennants in 1947, 1949, 1952 and 1953,... There has to be a better way to state this without so much repetition
 * Is Salutatorian usually capitalized?
 * I am a big fan of following chronology unless there is some really good reason not to. For example, the signing of Jackie Robinson was in 1947, but this is not stated in the article (see WP:PCR). Instead in the "Dodgers" section we get O'Malley's rise through the Dodgers organization from 1933 to president and chief stockholder in 1950, then we hear about signing Jackie Robinson.
 * The lead seems to indicate he played an important role in signing Jackie Robinson, but this is all we get: In particular, he had a significant role in Rickey's top-secret search for suitable Negro ballplayers and then later he had a role in assessing the on-going legal risks to the franchise.[10] Could there be more detail given?
 * Also in terms of structure, there are some non sequiturs - Nonetheless, after the transfer, the Dodgers remained successful under O'Malley: they won the National League pennants in 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1956. The signing of Robinson brought the team international notoriety, making O'Malley an international baseball ambassador to the likes of Iraq's King Faisal II.[23] In 1954 Dodger scout, Al Campanis, signed Sandy Koufax in large part for two reasons, ... Chronology is odd again here. So we start in 1950 with the purchase (transfer) and go up to 1956, the next sentence is based on the 1947 Robinson signing, then we are back in 1954. Why does advice to sign Sandy Koufax follow team success and breaking the color barrier? Perhaps this should be a new paragraph on O'Malley's wider influence in baseball? I know this is an article, but there has to be some narrative / story line too. What is the logical flow of the section / article?
 * Another needless repetition O'Malley envisioned a dome stadium near the Long Island Railroad station on Brooklyn's west end.[9] He wanted to build a new Brooklyn Dodger stadium at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenue, ... combine these details somehow in one sentence
 * Move to Los Angeles - I would start with how he decided on LA and the land dealings. Organizationally there seems to be more detail on the move of the SF Giants initially than on the move of the LA Dodgers. I like the section on the Giants move - it explains things nicely, but should follow the LA move.
 * Could the Time cover artist's name be added to the caption of the cover image (what does it add to the article)?
 * The "Popular culture" section needs more refs - the song is a direct quote and has no footnote. The first two pararaphs are also uncited and there are direct quotes from the cartoon that need a ref.
 * I do not understand the image licensing for Image:5262 1062164538.jpg (the photo in the infobox). It was taken before the birth of the user who seems to hold the license, so how can this be? If it has been released to him, should there be an OTRS ticket for it?
 * One more idea I find helpful is to print out the article and read it out loud. This is a way to find problems that get scanned over just reading it again.