Talk:Brooks Pounders/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to review this. I'll post some initial feedback by the weekend. Thanks to the nominator for improving WP's coverage of baseball. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC

Here is some initial feedback. First, the big stuff. Earwig's Copyvio Detector returns nothing of concern, I don't see any grossly non-neutral language, and the article appears to be stable. I'll leave some feedback section by section.

Lead[edit]

This strikes me as a lot for a one-paragraph lead. Consider breaking the lead into two paragraphs for readability.
- Done, where I thought it was reasonably logical to do so
"currently a free agent" - I know it's common phrasing, but it runs counter to WP:WTW (relative time references).
- Added a "as of September 2020" as a qualifier
I am getting sort of mixed messages between the wording in the lead (which refers to him as a free agent) and the and the last sentences of the Later Career section (which refer to at least his MLB career in the past tense). Maybe that wording is just because it seems unlikely that he'll return to MLB. I know we often do not get a big official announcement when a guy retires in the minors, but it would be nice if we could find something that clarifies his status.
- @Larry Hockett: - I've changed the last paragraph to be in the present tense, since I can find no announcement of a retirement. It looks like Pounders is not likely to play MLB again, but there's no source stating that outright, so there's no way to clarify status besides in free agency purgatory.
"chose not to play baseball in college" - This suggests that he attended college but was not on the baseball team. As I understand it, he did not enroll at USC or any other college because he was drafted by a professional organization out of HS.
- Clarified
If drafted in 2009 and traded to KC in 2011, "playing in the minor leagues for several years" is the wrong wording (less than three certainly isn't several).
- Rephrased. I have a bad habit of using "several" to mean anything between 2 and 7 or 8.

Early life[edit]

In the first sentence, place a comma after 1990 and California (both per [[MOS:COMMA).
- Darned geographic commas. I always forget those.
"When Pounder's mother" - don't break up a name with an apostrophe.
- Fixed
"so he did not play for USC" - Similar to the feedback from the lead, just make it clear he didn't attend USC.
- Went with "did not attend"
In which round did he get drafted?
- Added. Quite remiss of me to forget that

Career[edit]

Starting in these sections, what I am noticing is that the paragraphs are mostly just collections of stats, transactions, and player of the week mentions. Was there anything written about the subject that tells us other info? Strengths, weaknesses, what pitches he threw well, why he might have struggled when he did? We don't want a ton of quotes, but right now I am having a hard time getting a sense of what others thought about Pounders. The Rustin Dodd KC Star article has at least a quote about how Pounders felt like the Pirates gave up on him. There's a Pittsburgh Post Gazette article ("The school of hard knocks", 7/15/2010 - [1]) that has some info on Pounders and a couple of other prospects.
- The Pittsburgh Post Gazette piece is a "publisher's extra" clipping, so I can't access it without it a subscription. However, I did apply for newspapers.com access at WP:LIBRARY a couple days ago, so maybe I'll get approved for that. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm trying to see what else I can find. I found a statement about the Mets' former manager about his slider having improvement, so I've added that. Most of what I'm finding is in sports blogs, mostly because the mainstream sources don't give a whole lot of "this guy is struggling" analysis, and when you have a 8+ ERA, you don't get much intention. I'm still trying to find more. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Royals[edit]

"Pounder's no hitter" - same apostrophe issue
- I apparently kept forgetting his name was Pounders, not Pounder
"Over the course of a career-high 134 innings" - "over the course of" is unnecessarily wordy. I don't think it hurts once or twice, but this phrase appears six times in this relatively short entry.
- Removed "the course of" here, and I've removed the whole phrase towards the end of the article when I changed the tense
"He also named the Carolina League pitcher" - was named
- Done
How did the 2015 national team do in the tournament?
- Second. Added.
"in a 3–8 loss to the Toronto Blue Jays" - In North American sports like baseball, it is more common to list the higher score first ("an 8-3 loss").
- Done

Later career[edit]

"had recorded 3.60 ERA" - a 3.60 ERA
- Done
"he also had 4–2 record, a 8.47 career ERA" - a 4-2 record, an 8.47 career ERA
- Done

Again, I think the biggest thing is just that we need more than stats and transactions. If you're able to find more non-statistical information on Pounders, I'll take another quick look at the prose once you add that. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Hockett: - I'm struggling to find any of the quotations coverage, I've only been able to scrape up a little bit (still can't access the newspapers.com source). Hog Farm _Bacon 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me take a look this weekend. It's my goal to work with you, not against you, so I'll see if I can add a bit from newspapers.com or other places. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Larry Hockett: - My application for Wikipedia Library newspapers.com finally went through. I've added some material from the Post-Gazette source you found, another brief reference from the same paper earlier that year, and a bit from him and his manager after his first loss. There's not a whole lot out here about this guy, but I'll keep looking. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hog Farm, thank you for your patience on this. I didn't mean to leave you hanging. I've added a little bit to what you've added and I'm pretty satisfied that we have a narrative that reads as more than a series of stat lines. Good work. I'd like to take one more look through the entry, especially to spot check the sourcing. Since it is already late here, I hope to accomplish this (and promote the article, barring any big problems) by tomorrow evening. I didn't mean to turn this into a never-ending GA review, and I thank you for hanging in there and using your WP Library subscription to take the entry up a notch. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, I'm patient. Given that Talk:James Hood Wright/GA1 has been open since May, I don't think the length of this review is too bad at all. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the patience. I've been over the article again and this is good work. As you'll note below, I'm passing this GA nomination. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This was an interesting article with a surprising amount of prose for a pitcher who only threw a few dozen innings at the major league level.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead-related issues were remedied during the review process.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Several spot checks of the sourcing show that the material is well-supported by the citations.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's tool and the random use of Google Search both showed nothing of concern.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The major aspects are covered, especially for a player who has not received the same level of WP:RS coverage as a superstar.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Good use of neutral language, especially for a sports figure who started his career as a second-round pick.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One image, appropriate CC-BY license.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Great work here. Passing.

Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]