Talk:Tim McClelland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 wild card[edit]

The "did in fact not touch the plate" reference is bogus. There is no reference and the play is in dispute. I'm a big McClelland fan, but it's close JUST LIKE HAND GRENADES AND HORSESHOES and no video gives definitive proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.56.59 (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


2007 wild card video proof. Might want to check out www.hollidaynevertouchedtheplate.com for the conclusive video proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifididit (talkcontribs) 06:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Worst Call of All Time" appelation doesn't belong here.[edit]

Yes, I understand that "some media outlets" have mentioned the "worst call of all time." Well, "some media outlets" also refer to Dave Pallone's call that sparked Pete Rose's suspension the worst call of all time; if you're in St. Louis, no doubt your local media outlets would note Don Denkinger in this context; Atlantans might bring up Eric Gregg.

Point is, whether or not reputable sources have used the phrase "worst call of all time," that is such a loaded and context-sensitive phrase that it in no way belongs in an encyclopedia's treatment of Mr. McClelland.

And if you disagree, I understand... but please update the page of EVERY OTHER MLB UMPIRE who has earned similar criticism over the years.  :-)

Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tim McClelland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 15:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)


Starting comments: This nomination is going to be failed, as the nominator has asked for and been granted an indefinate block, and there are issues that would prevent the article from being promoted as is. I will, however, provide a full review, for the benefit of anyone that wishes to take this to GAN again. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work
  • What makes the third paragraph in the "Notable games" section notable? As someone that's not a fan of Baseball, I have no idea whether single-game playoffs are inherently notable, and the paragraph lacks context on the games' notability.
  • I would mention what his BA and MA are in; those aren't common degrees, and are relevant to his career choice.
b. MoS compliance: Needs work
  • Content should not appear only in the lead and not in the body text (this is not expressly prohibited, but is strongly discouraged). Information about his jersey number and his stance appear in the lead, but not in the body text. At the very least, that content needs to be cited.
  • I don't feel that the lead meets the "Relative emphasis" portion of WP:LEAD.

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references: Acceptable
b. proper citation use: Needs work
  • The entire first and third paragraphs of the "Controversies" section are not cited.
  • The last sentence of the Sosa paragraph in "Notable games" also needs a citation.
c. no original research: No comment
  • No comment on this, per concerns with 2b.

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects: Question
b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Acceptable

5. Stable: Acceptable

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable
b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A
b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable


Comments after the initial review: Normally I would kick this back out to the nominator to fix. In this case, however, the nominator has been indefinitely blocked (by request), and there is no indication that another user has taken custody of the GAN. As such, I am failing this review. NOT PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]