Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive4

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:39, 28 July 2012 [1].

---

Derek Jeter

Derek Jeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive4

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

After this article failed FA review in December, I was crestfallen. I took time off from this article, save for requesting a peer review in January. That was a great decision. I was too deep into this article to see its flaws.

While I was away from this article, I spent time improving other articles. If you look at my userpage, you'll see lots of DYKs, GAs and FLs, many of which I worked on during the winter. I believe that improved my researching and writing ability immensely.

In April, with the start of the 2012 Major League Baseball season beginning, I decided it was time to revisit this article. I printed a copy and used a red pen to note changes that needed to be made during my commute, and I noticed areas that were in fact incomplete (especially postseasons) and where prose needed some serious improvement. I followed the advice in the peer review and addressed comments from the last failed FAC. I also asked for and received a pre-FAC review from Wizardman (talk · contribs), for which I'm grateful.

I fully understand why this article has failed its previous FACs (the first one, it was not near ready; the second, it was still further than I thought; the third was closer but still not there). I now feel that I have what it takes to promote this to FA status. I have other articles I want to nominate here, but given my personal affinity for Jeter and all of the work I've done on this article since 2009 (over 600 edits to this one article), I want this to be my first FA. I appreciate any comments that can help to improve the quality of this article, and hope that this is the last time I have to nominate this article before it can pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Muboshgu. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Even though I hate the Yankees I can't help but love this guy and his passion for the game.

• "RBIs" since this is an abbreviation for "runs batted in", do we really need the s. Also I'm a little concerned about how often this is used throughout the article, but only in the first instance does it say what it stands for. "MLB" also has this problem.
  • I agree that it should be "RBI" and not "RBIs", and I've made that change throughout. As far as the acronyms in general go, my understanding is that you spell it out for the first usage in the body of the article, and then use the acronym for the rest of the article.
• "0-for-7" the reader may not know what this means.
  • Linked to Glossary_of_baseball_(O)#O-fer, that should help
• "Jeter tagging out a runner" he has a name you know! It's Miguel Tejada.
  • It is, I didn't notice. It says so now.
• "The Flip," shouldn't the comma come after the quotation mark?
  • I'm not an expert on punctuation and quotation marks, but I think you're right.
• Why is an image taken in 2006 used in the "1999–2002" section?
  • There aren't any good images that are freely available from that time period. Check out Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs)'s reaction to finding a 2001 picture of Mariano Rivera. Many baseball articles based on this timeframe suffer from this problem. Jeter looks almost exactly the same now as he did twenty years ago.
• "he endured a 1-for-36 slump, he batted .168" I'm confused here, 1 for 36 would be an average of .028, and I think someone that doesn't follow baseball would be even more confused!
  • I hope that my edit there has clarified what that means.
• "his batting average increased to .277" I think "improved" would be a better word to use here.
  • Yep.
• "as his range factor rose to 4.76" this isn't a stats I was familiar with, I had to click the link to find out what it was. Is it really notable enough to mention here?
  • Probably not. I'm only a little familiar with it myself, and it's not widely accepted (it's a sabermetric stat the old-timers hate)
• "the 2007 season was Jeter's sixth overall and third consecutive season with at least 200 hits." The first part of that statement makes it sound like he'd only been playing for six seasons.
  • Sentence rewritten, I hope that's more clear
• "Finishing third in the AL with 203 hits, the 2007 season was Jeter's sixth overall and third consecutive season with at least 200 hits. He also finished fourth in both at-bats (639) and plate appearances (714), sixth in times on base (276), and ninth in batting average (.322)." needs a ref.
  • Added a ref.
• "as the Indians defeated the Yankees." might be worth mentioning the series score.
  • Mentioned
• "He is the only member of the 3,000 hit club to record all of his hits with the New York Yankees" might be worth mentioning he also the only member to record his 3,000th hit as a Yankee.
  • Mentioned. The same source used for that sentence backs it up.
• "Ripken said he felt Jeter has a chance to reach 4,000 career hits." this threw me off a bit. Statements from a team-mate and his manager make sense, but why do we suddenly have some random retired player who never played for the Yankees talking about him? a bit of context might help here.
  • I feel that Ripken is highly relevant. Ripken and Jeter are both shortstops with significant tenure who are both members of the 3,000 hit club. I can remove it if that isn't persuasive. I think the quote speaks to Jeter's longevity, and that coming from Ripken (the owner of MLB's consecutive games played streak) means something.
• ".450 (9-for-20)" shouldn't they be the other way round?
  • Yes, it should be.
• Given the title, does the "Led League" list really need to say "Led AL" for ever single entry?
  • No, that was redundant. I hadn't written that section, just got accustomed to it.
• Refs #29, #30, #122 and #153 need dating.
  • Dated all that I can. This Forbes page doesn't have a proper date.

Overall it looks to be very close to passing. BUC (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see the words "very close to passing"! I will get on these comments in the next day or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have finished responding to your comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm probably not going to review, but this needs to be fixed (I'm at 1024x600) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm got the same issue on my work computer, didn't have that on my home comp. By resizing the table from 75% to 74%, the problem is solved, at least on my monitor (I think I have the same 1024x600 resolution, but am too lazy/busy to check). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Works on mine too. Wow, that was a small change indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I learned long ago that 74% for a table is the magic number for an upright image to fit next to it. I'm not sure why, but that's the number. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Cleaned up a few things in the article, including a faulty link, and found the following bit, which I find questionable: "in the 2004 ALDS, as Jeter's Game 2 home run gave the Yankees a 2 games to 0 lead". His homer didn't give the Yankees anything; they fell behind later in the game in extra innings and had to rally to win. It reads like Jeter hit a game-winning home run when that wasn't the case, and if a random Division Series game is to be mentioned, I'd personally go with the 5-for-5 game against Detroit in 2006. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at that 2004 ALDS bit. That was my writing, as I was trying to beef up the narrative of his postseason performances, but I don't remember the details of that series specifically (I've tried to block out 2004). – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I deleted the bit about the Game 2 HR in the 2004 ALDS. It's not that important, and the properly sourced bit about his .316 average and team-best 4 RBI in the series should suffice as a description of his performance in that particular series. I added the 5-for-5 performance of Game 1 in the 2006 ALDS. Only the sixth player to record 5 hits in a playoff game? That should be in his bio. You have a better memory for individual games than I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. While doing further copy-editing, I found one more issue worth bringing up here. The 2009–present section has "Jeter doubled down the right-field line for his 2,675th hit as a shortstop, breaking Luis Aparicio's previous record for the most hits by a shortstop in major league history." Later, we have "Jeter became the second player to reach 3,000 career hits as a shortstop (the first was Honus Wagner)." This is going to seem like a contradiction to non-baseball fans. Wagner played some at other positions, but since that isn't indicated anywhere it is confusing. Maybe a footnote of some kind would help? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note added. If anyone wants to rewrite it, by all means. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be on vacation with no internet access from May 27 through May 31, and am unlikely to have any time for wikiediting on May 26 as well. Any comments that are made in the interim, I will address when I return in June. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments: This is getting close to FA quality now, though I found a few more issues from 2009 onward; any simple copyedits I went and made myself.

• "107 runs scored (in the top 10 in MLB)," I'm fine with the note for hits, but this one doesn't seem too necessary; I'd either make it more specific on what place he was or just remove it.
• "However, he broke Rickey Henderson's franchise record" Rm however, it doesn't really fit with the sentence.
• "Jeter suffered a calf injury that required his fifth career 15-day disabled list stint, and his first since 2003." What day/game?
• The 3000th hit paragraph feels a bit much, but at the same time I'm not really sure what would be removed. I'll leave that to other reviewers if they think it's a problem.
• "Ripken said he felt Jeter has a chance to reach 4,000 career hits.[124]" Not sure if this is necessary. It is possible, but skepticism doesn't really fit in an encyclopedic article.
• How did he do in the 2009 WBC? Stats are noted for 06 but not the other one.
• ", and fifth in base on balls (64) and sixth stolen bases" rm first and

Not a huge amount to fix, once this is resolved I'll support the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made those changes, though I haven't (yet) touched the 3,000 hit paragraph or Ripken quote. Jeter's 3000th hit was a big moment, perhaps the biggest of his career. I think the paragraph gives it its due weight. I'm open to a little pruning, but I don't see what needs to go. As for the Ripken quote, I'm okay removing it if that's consensus (you're not the first person to comment on its inclusion), but I feel that Ripken's comments have some sufficient weight behind them, because of who he is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

After thinking about it a little more, I commented out the Ripken tidbit. It probably doesn't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. I won't push on the 3,000 hit thing since it's probably okay. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Bagumba

1. "clubhouse presence, on-field leadership": Non-sports readers might take "clubhouse presence" literally. Perhaps combine the both under plain "leadership".
2. "the Roberto Clemente Award": change "the" to "a" as the rest of sentence enumerates numbers of instances of each achievement.
3. ".351 batting average in the World Series": World Series was already linked before
4. "Derek and Sharlee lived ..." perhaps should use Jeter instead of Derek in this sentence per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Family_members_with_the_same_surname.
5. "the only place Derek Jeter's going is to Cooperstown": items in quotations should generally not be linked per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#General_points_on_linking_style.
6. "0-for-7 with five strikeouts": Strikeout was already linked in "High school"
7. "Jorge Posada and Andy Pettitte, who played for the Hornets that season and, with Jeter and Mariano Rivera, would form the Yankees' Core Four ..." the introduction of "Core Four" here seems too forced.
8. "He was named to the All-Star team after finishing second in the league in triples (11), third in hits (152) and 11th in batting average.": citation needed
9. "and as a precaution, the Yankees signed Tony Fernández to a two-year contract.": seems less winded to make a separate sentence.
10. "cross the picket line": wikilink to Strikebreaker would be helpful.
11. "the Yankees reportedly offered Jeter the opportunity to work out for the MLB team": Can we get rid of "reportedly". This isn't breaking news or based on anonymous sources. Attribute to Michaels and say Jeter denied it, or don't mention it.
12. Would be helpful to mention Pat Kelly's field position.
13. MLB debut: be useful to say what he did, and/or have a citation to boxscore.
14. "demoted to Class AAA Columbus": mention replaced by Fernandez
15. "the first Yankee rookie to do so since Tom Tresh in 1962": Since Jeter played the previous season, readers might be confused why he was a rookie. a wikilink to rookie and a footnote explaining why he still qualified is needed.
16. "hit third in the batting order": should explain the significance for non-baseball readers. Also, not much mention in this article of his usual batting position. In 2006, there is mention that Damon batted "lead off, with Jeter batting second in the lineup" with no background of where Jeter was before (leadoff?) Either mention in Career section or consolidate it to "Player profile".
17. "In the postseason, Jeter batted .455 in the ALDS, .350 in the ALCS, and .353 in the World Series": Was going to say World Series was overlinked here, but it is linked to 1999 World Series. I would have ignored the link thinking it was a repeated link as there is no visible reason to think it was a different link. Similarly, when opponents are linked, I always wondered why the specific opponent's season article is not linked. Not a FA showstopper, but worth pondering.
18. "Rodriguez signed a ten-year $252 million contract earlier in the offseason," should mention who he signed with (i.e. not the Yankees yet)
19. "their third consecutive title, and Jeter's fourth championship overall.":mention 4th in 5 years with Jeter per "Derek's dollars" existing reference.
20. The Flip: Aside from awards and timeliness of the play, more is needed to convey in words why it was physically an amazing play. In the ref "Baseball's most amazing plays", Posada said "I knew if Derek got the ball and turned to throw we'd have no chance, but he flipped it backhanded."
21. "September 11 terrorist attacks": should use the common name of "September 11 attacks"
22. Mr November: a lot of sentences to build it up, not sure it's due weight relative to his career. Could some of the background be in footnotes or otherwise shortened?
23. "On Opening Day of the 2003 season": opening day was already linked
24. "Blue Jays catcher Ken Huckaby at third base" Blue Jays was not previously introduced or linked
25. "11th recognized captain" why use "recognized"? If significant, more details needed.
26. "leading to speculation that the Yankees would move Jeter from shortstop, as Rodriguez had two Gold Glove Awards at shortstop and Jeter had none." Pointing out the Gold Gloves is enough to show the speculation without having to explicitly say "leading to speculation" Consider something like, "Although Rodriguez had two Gold Glove Awards at shortstop and Jeter had none, the Yankees had Jeter remain the team's starting shortstop, with Rodriguez moving to third base."
27. "During a July 1, 2004 game against the rival Boston Red Sox ..." I was wondering where this was going at first. Mention the Play Of The Year award first, and then describe the play.
28. "and were poised to face the Red Sox in the 2004 ALCS." Reword, as they did in fact play them.
29. group defensive accolades and mention the 2004 GG with the Play of the Year side-by-side
30. "At one point, Jeter had the most at bats of any active player not to have hit a grand slam": clarify that it was the most at-bats (155) with the bases loaded without a GS. Also the source said "his 156 homers coming in were the most without a slam by active big leaguers." I think it's more the number of bases-loaded opportunities along with the fact that he does have some power that is the notable part; you would think plenty of non-power hitters or those without based-loaded opps go a long time or never hit a GS
31. "Without center fielder Bernie Williams": what happened to him?
32. "Instead, the Yankees signed Johnny Damon to play center field and lead off": wiklink to Leadoff hitter
33. "stolen base success percentage (87.2), and batting average with runners in scoring position (.381), fourth in OBP (.417), and fifth in infield hits (26), " SB%, RISP, and IH should be removed. I'm OK with common stats being sourced only from a stat site, but would recommend only mentioning others if they are at least supported in prose in a reference to show their significance.
34. "He also finished fourth in both at-bats (639) and plate appearances (714), sixth in times on base (276)": same comment on stats referenced from stat site
35. "One possible cause was a prolonged slump that he suffered after being hit by a pitch on his wrist." Needs sources about who said it was a possible cause. And when was the injury? Did Jeter acknowledge it? Otherwise, just mention the injury and reader can decide if it was a cause. I'm wary of this section presenting before injury stats and then after injury stats from a stat site. It seems like original research, especially since the first 1.5 months is arguably a small sample and players slump for many reasons.
36. "Before the injury, Jeter was hitting .324 with a .774 on-base plus slugging (OPS)." Strange that OPS, if significant, is only first mentioned in 2008
37. "Despite Jeter's strong September showing,": any numbers to quantify?
38. Final 2008 BA not mentioned. While listing of stats every year seems repetitive, and I dont have any suggestions on how it should be handled, it also doesnt seem consistent that few of the "usual" stats were mentioned in 2008.
39. "Following the final game in Yankee Stadium history, Jeter made an impromptu on-field speech": more notable is that he was asked by the Yankees to speak. Not comfortable with "impromptu", as he was told days before. It is unclear in the ref whose fault it was that it was not confirmed earlier.
40. "asking them to pass on their memories from the venue while making new memories at the new Yankee Stadium" unsourced, and a bit over the top
41. "his 2,675th hit as a shortstop, breaking Luis Aparicio's previous record for the most hits by a shortstop in major league history": second part should also be "as a shortstop" instead of "by a shortstop", or just say "his 2,675th hit as a shortstop, breaking Luis Aparicio's previous major league record."
42. Mention Hank Aaron and Clemente award in 2009 in body
43. "behind Minnesota's Joe Mauer and teammate Mark Teixeira": mention he is a Yankee teammate, to distinguish from Mauer's teammate
44. "The 2010 season was statistically Jeter's worst in many respects." Should be able to find a better ref for this than a mid-season article from the same season.
45. "The Yankee captain batted .270 with a .340 OBP and .370 SLG and an Adjusted OPS of 90, his first full season with an OPS+ below 100." needs ref. First (and only?) mention of Adjusted OPS and OPS+ so late in bio is also a bit inconsistent. Mention his BA and OBP being career lows. Comparison to his previous low would put into perspective too.
46. "He reached an agreement with the Yankees on a three-year contract with an option for a fourth year" Considering other salaries are mentioned earlier in the article, its inconsistent to not mention here. There should be some mention on the tone of the negotiations and factors behind the terms of the contract and overpaying for his being a NY icon [2][3]
47. "Jeter began the 2011 season batting .260 with a .649 OPS." Over what time period on number of games?
48. "Rehabilitating from his injury in Tampa, Jeter worked on his swing with Denbo." Denbo was mentioned so long ago, might be good to preface he was his minor league manager.
49. These sources [4][5] mention that Kevin Long's attempt to redo Jeter's swing led to frustration and was "ill-advised". This says Denbo restored his old swing. This area needs to be expanded more.
50. "one of only two players (the other being Wade Boggs) to hit a home run for his 3,000th hit" should specifiy in MLB history, (as opposed to Yankee history)
51. His OPS in 2011 was only marginally better than 2010. There should be some sources available that put 2011 in perspective as another "twilight" year
52. Existing ref "How the Yankees' Derek Jeter has turned back the clock" mentions his increased ground-ball rate attributing to his drop. Consider adding.
53. "Despite concerns that Jeter's age might catch up to him in 2012" 1) The concern was that age had already caught up to him since 2010 2)the "streak" was actually a continuation of success at the end of 2011
54. "Only Ken Griffey, Jr. (.524) and Yoandy Garlobo (.480) had a higher batting average with a minimum of 20 at bats" It read as if Garlobo was a teammate on the national team
55. "He has an average of 194 hits, 118 runs scored and 23 stolen bases per year over the course of 152 games played" As of when?
56. "Jeter has only played fewer than 148 games a season once in his career, when he dislocated his left shoulder on Opening Day 2003." He only played in 131 in 2011
57. "He has more home runs to the opposite field than to center or to left, using his swing to take advantage of the short right-field fences at both the old and new Yankee Stadiums." This is verbatim from the source. The sentence before that is also pretty close to word-for-word.
58. "In an age where professional athletes often find themselves in personal scandals, Jeter has avoided major controversy": a bit exaggerated. There was the uproar over his mansion[6], the criticism over partying from Steinbrenner, the NY tax issue, ...
59. "Always respectful, he referred to Torre as "Mr. Torre". I'm sure he is respectful, but can do better than one narrow example (and from a 1998 source).
60. "Jeter holds MLB postseason records for games played (152), plate appearances (679), at-bats (559), hits (191), doubles (31), runs scored (107), total bases (290) and strikeouts (125). Jeter is also third in triples (4), third in home runs (20), fourth in runs batted in (59), fifth in base on balls (64) and sixth stolen bases (18)." Source needed. I dont see where the b-r.com source says they are records. The leaderboard section lists standing only for regular season.
61. "was probably the most ineffective defensive player in the major leagues, at any position." when was this written. Over what time period was the assessment?
62. His defense could be dealt chronologically with with the rest of his career, or at least mention and provide a link earlier that there is a section on his defense. It is jarring to read all the Gold Gloves and only see toward the end there is a different perspective.
63. Additional information for adding content on defense
    1. This credits his quick release on defense. Also says he went from costing runs to saving runs.
    2. "past a diving jeter" is referenced often and might bear mentioning in a neutral way[7][8][9][10][11]
    3. Here's one source that his offensive reputation and highlight-reel plays helped him win GG.[12] It also points to non-sabermetric stats like putouts and assists. Jeter won GG in 2006 despite Álex González having fewer errors and higher fielding pct[13] Other sources on impact of reputation[14][15][16][17] Here is another on his highlight reel plays[18]
    4. ESPN on lack of range skewing Jeter's fielding percentage and his lower chances relative to other SS[19]
    5. This NY Times article says ARods arrival at 3b helped Jeters defense, allowing him to cheat to his left[20]
64. Statistical highlights: do we really need less common stats with no explanation or wikilink like plate appearances, runs created. Why is times on base listed but not HBP ... I can do without either.
65. Milestones: seem mostly a repeat of career section. Integrate whatever wasn't. Alternatively, a timeline in tabular format with a date column and achievement column is more presentable and could be used if this is to be kept.
66. "New York State alleged that Jeter should have paid state income tax from 2001 to 2003, as Jeter bought a Manhattan apartment in 2001;" He owed taxes because he allegedly lived in NY, not just that he owned property there.
67. "Jeter established his residence in Tampa, Florida, in 1994" More accurate to say he claimed residency instead of "established"
68. "wasn't totally focused" and that "it didn't sit well" with him: the quotes are not supported by the source
69. "He has also renewed his close friendship with teammate Alex Rodriguez after a rift between them developed several years ago.": some more words on the rift needed
70. "The organization's name derives from the baseball double play (where "turning two" refers to making two outs on one play) and indicates the goal of the Foundation to give youths a place to "turn to" instead of drugs and alcohol": not supported by source
71. "During the 2009 season, Jeter and Mets star David Wright represented their foundations ..." seems like news/trivia, and the outcome isnt mentioned. I would think there are more notable achievements of the charity.
72. Fleet Bank, Discover Card, Florsheim, Skippy, XM Satellite Radio: need sources for endorsements
73. Gillete Fusion: just make it Gillete
74. "In 2006, Jeter was the second-highest paid endorser in baseball" who was first? Where does $7 million figure come from in source?
75. "He was ranked as the most marketable player in baseball according to the 2005[195] and 2010 Sports Business Surveys": sources say 2003 as well
76. "His likeness was seen briefly on The Simpsons during the eighth episode of season 19": unsourced, needs to meet WP:IPC
77. "If you're going to play at all, you're out to win. Baseball, board games, playing Jeopardy, I hate to lose.": would be more interesting to have a quote from someone else during or about his minor league days. Place this in the body in "player profile" perhaps.
78. "I have the greatest job in the world. Only one person can have it." Seems like self-promotion. I'd remove from quote box for his own bio, but can place in body; not sure of the context as it's subscription only
79. Be useful to attribute dates in quote boxes.
80. Move pictures in Derek_Jeter#1995.E2.80.931998 and Derek_Jeter#Defense to the left side so subject is looking towards center of page per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location.
81. succession boxes: They dont seem notable enough to be worth the clutter relative to the other navboxes. Also there is already a navbox for NYY captain.
82. "Derek Jeter: March to 3,000 Hits" ext link: now that he's passed it and this is supposed to be FA, why is this considered "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" per WP:ELNO
83. citation format: some like MLB.com have as publisher MLB Advanced Media, while a lot of ESPN refs have publisher as plain "ESPN" instead of "ESPN Internet Ventures". Inconsistent.
84. "Fernandez Fields Move to Second Well: Injury to Kelly Creates Another Chance." says subscription required but there is no url
85. Bibliography: Is this used as general reference or are they intended a external links instead?
86. Wasn't he fatigued from 3,000 hit chase and requested out of the All-Star game. The mental impact seems worth mention.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Wow, 86 comments, some with subcomments. They seem doable, at first glance. I'll get to them this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 through 6 are done. Regarding #7, I did kinda force the Core Four mention in, as I noticed the term wasn't used once in the article. Do you think I should move the term down to 2009, when it was first used? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I would recommend to either introduce it 1) if/when all four first played together in the minors, or 2) when the term was first created or 3)when they were all major contributors in the majors. I'm not an expert enough on Yankees to know which is best.—Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I chose 2). Core Four is now linked at the end of the 2009 section, as the term began to be used when the, well, Core Four, won their 5th WS together, which was 2009. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
        • "Winning their fifth World Series championship together, members of the media began to call Jeter, Pettitte, Posada, and Rivera the "Core Four": The source uses "Core Four" but it doesnt say that's when its use began. Here's a 2005 source that used the term. Unless a source says when the term was introduced, perhaps you can say something like "It was also the fifth championship for Pettitte, Posada, and Rivera, who along with Jeter were referred to as the "Core Four".—Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Interesting. I hadn't heard the term in 2005. Note that it substitutes Pettitte (then playing for the Astros) with Bernie Williams, who is not now seen as a "Core Four" member. I'll rewrite it as you just suggested there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 9 through 16 are done. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Re: changes for 16
      1. Good details added on batting position. It would be excessive to add more year-by-year batting order changes, but I think the "Player profile" can mention that he generally batted 1st or 2nd in his career.[21]
      2. "With his speed and ability to hit and run": the ref doesn't specifically mention Jeter's ability to hit-and-run, only the teams (or maybe Raines, unclear). Maybe more notable is NY Times saying "it's like having two leadoff men".—Bagumba (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not planning on adding more year-by-year changes. Besides, he's been a #1 or #2 hitter for about 2200 of the 2400 games he's played in his career, so there isn't anything else to add about it, like there is on Alex Rodriguez being dropped in the order during the 2006 ALDS.
      • The reference does mention using Jeter for hit and runs. At least I thought it did. I'll clarify the language later. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 17 through 31 are done. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Re #32, the term is now linked earlier in the article (when talking about Tim Raines). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 33 and 34 are done. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 66, 73, 80, 82, 84, and 85 are done. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • 45: mention career low BA. 85: access dates in EL not appropriate per Wikipedia:EL#External_links_section. The ELs have inconsistent format.—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
      • 45: mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
      • 85 fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 65: you're right, a lot of that was redundant with the article body. I merged the notable bits that weren't already there, deleted the duplicates, and some that were not so important (tying Ruth for 4th in Yankee games played? He broke Mantle's record for most games played a year later.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 37 and 38 are taken care of. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 47, 48, 54, and 76 fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 55 fixed, though I could use the BR page to update it through 2011 if that seems necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 64 is done. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 67 done. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Re: 63, Jeter's defense - I agree it needed some work, as really the whole section was just criticism. I've added some from the references you provided. I don't consider this done yet, but a work in progress. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Made it more clear that his first GG award came in 2004, after "The Dive". I'll add a link that talks about how A-Rod won the award as a SS, and his moving to 3B w/ the Yankees was a factor in why Jeter never won the award before 2004, and starting winning it alot afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The 2006 GG wasn't even mentioned in prose. D'oh. Now it is. I also added the details on A-Rod's arrival in 2004 helping Jeter from his right, and Teixeira's arrival in 2009 helping Jeter from his left. I added more details on other shortstops who may have been more deserving of GG awards, like Cabrera in 2005 and Gonzalez in 2006 (haven't seen an explicit complaint of "this guy should've won the award!" in the other years). I would prefer not to add "past a diving Jeter", since it seems a little unencyclopedic to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 35, can't find enough that would make me confident it wasn't OR, so deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 68, found a source that backs up the quote. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 70, unnecessary detail removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 71 and 8 done. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 52, 42, 83, and 50 done. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 46 - I agree that the salary needed to be included, as well as some of the details of the negotiations, which did get a little nasty in public. I don't know that I agree with comments about "overpaying to retain the Yankee icon", and I don't like the tone of that Lebowitz book. I stuck with the facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 49 - beefed up talk of Jeter's work with Long and Denbo. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 60 and 72 cited, 74 and 75 fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 62 - I'm thinking about how to handle this one. IIRC, cricitism of Jeter's defense didn't really start until around 2006 or so. I don't remember anyone criticizing his defense in the late 1990s or early 2000s, am I simply misremembering? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Link 8 on point #63 goes into some sabermetrics on the earlier years. The Neyer and BP sources already in the article have some earlier years as well. What I think can be improved is the "Major leagues (1995–present)" section only mentioning positives like GGs, and the "Defense" section being criticism. It can be in one or the other section or both sections, but I'm thinking it might be better to see both sides somewhat together as opposed to it being fully segregated. At the very least, the "Defense" section late in the article should not be the first time it is mentioned after all the earlier praising.—Bagumba (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 61 - Written in 2006, speaking about his entire career. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 57 rewritten. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 77 done. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 44 - Mid-September isn't really "midseason". With two weeks left, you know what sort of year he had. The reference in that paragraph labeled "turned back the clock" is from April 2012. That said, I added a link from Mid-October 2010 that explicitly calls it his worst season. It's also going to help add to that defense narrative for point #62, re: should Jeter require changing positions in his late 30s. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 86 mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I added another source, but after reading it again realized it only said "exhausted", which could be emotional or physical. So I dug further, and realized that he later denied exhaustion and said it was because of injury after being on the DL for 3 weeks. The injury was mentioned again this year. The injury reason should be cited. However, I'm indifferent now if emotional part needs explaining. You can decide.—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with it the way it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, I placed the ref of him denying it was emotional into the article.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 53 wording fixed – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 58 - Exaggerated? Perhaps. It's one of the big things columnists note about him. Schilling's quote speaks to it as well. Yes there was the mansion, and the taxes, and the Steinbrenner thing, but those are all minor, in terms of public perception. Perhaps I should mention a bit more on his efforts to control his image (ie, making everyone at a party give him their cell phone when his love interest arrived?) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Could we temper for NPOV with adding mostly: "mostly avoided major controversy".—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • We can. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 78 and 79 taken care of - dates added for kept quotes, the rest deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 69 - more detail on the rift added. I'll ask Giants2008 for those page numbers. Anything more to add on it, or is it enough detail? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • 1. You have some bareurls for ref 64 and 105.
      • Fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
      1. "During Jeter's contract negotiations, Rodriguez predicted ...": Introduce that Arod were friends at the point (?)
      2. "Rodriguez was making an attempt to change": what was he changing? What were the issues they had? Was it only the eralier contract comments or more?
      3. "Jeter began to accept Rodriguez's personal differences." makes it sound like only ARod had problems. One could also get the imnpression from the source that Jeter was rigid. Need more NPOV.
      4. If Arod relationship is dealt with in the "Career" section, it doesn't need repeating in "Personal life".—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Ghe bit on the rift in the personal section is now moved to the chronology. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 56 updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Mention the # games played for those years (148, 131).—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Done (it's 119 and 131). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 59 - I'm not sure what to do about this. This example has been reported on specifically. There may be some other examples out there. Should I search, or delete this? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems trivial unless a more general statement can be made. Perhaps The Captain has more :-) Otherwise, I'm OK with deleting.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not sure how to expand on it, and I left it until now to think about it. Consider it struck. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 51 - Added a Nate Silver article. Sufficient, or more needed? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Eh I found a few more. Let me know if the text needs altering. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

87. His biography The Captain: The Journey of Derek Jeter listed in Further Reading should be read and used as a reference. It's difficult to believe this is a fully comprehensive article when no biographies on the subject are cited.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'll read the biography, personally. In lieu of reading the biography, would it be acceptable if I use a review of the book mentioning its more newsworthy tidbits? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the book myself, but I think I read some review that mentioned it goes into the relationship with Arod, which would help address point #69. Perhaps another reviewer who has read the book can comment, or maybe you can provide a convincing argument why a book is not needed in an FA.—Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has read the book, that would be very helpful. I'm in the process of getting Joe McGinnity up to FA status, but since he's an older player, there isn't much available online. I got an excellent biography on him which I'm using to go into significant detail on him. Jeter, however, came about in an era with more readily available news coverage. The book may give more info on the A-Rod/Jeter dynamic than was already reported in the media, but the fact is that it was reported in the media. Point #69 is just one that I was holding off on until I accomplished the others. Maybe by the time I cover it, you may agree that citing the book isn't required. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

69 was an example of what the book could be used for, not a requirement that it be used for 69. I note that some of the advice at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria#See also also prefers books as references where possible. I'm not concerned about web sites going away (and a lot of the links here are from newspapers anyways), but I'm of the belief that a 400-page book is usually more comprehensive than 100s of 1-2 page articles. We can continue mulling as other points are still outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that the biography of Jeter published last year has become an issue due to its absence here. I've read large portions of the book, and I believe that the content of this article represents what is in the book pretty well. The one thing the book could help with is in talking more about why Jeter has wide popularity among fans. The book is searchable on Google Books here, so maybe you can find some of that content; searching for specific items on Google Books works much better than trying to read an entire work and glean context from it anyway. As for the Jeter–A-Rod relationship, an excerpt related to that can be found on ESPN.com. If you want to use this, let me know and I'll provide page numbers etc. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can trust Giants2008's recommendation based on his reading of the book. Covering those areas would be sufficient for me.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I will work to add some of that, flesh out the A-Rod bit and remaining unresolved bullets, and hopefully we can close out this sucker in a week or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Overall, this article is extremely close to achieving FA quality, based on the 4 FA criteria points. Looking through it, there is just one possible issue I spotted:

• "Shane Spencer retrieved the ball and made a wild throw that missed cut-off man Tino Martinez and dribbled down the first-base line." Not to get all technical, but judging from the MLB video on "The Flip," at 0:12, both Martinez and Alfonso Soriano are shown as the cut-off men on the line (with one backing the other one up) and at 0:27, the announcer says "both cutoff men were missed." This ESPN source also mentions it, so I think it would be beneficial to add Soriano to the sentence, since this would make Jeter's play look even more exceptional (the throw having missed not one, but two cutoff men, yet Jete was still able to make a play off it).

Other than that, this article looks set to pass. Once resolved, I'll give my full support to make this an FA. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Forget it. This small minute issue does not severely detract from the article's quality, so I'm not going to let it withhold my full support for this already exceptional article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm getting to your comment. I've been trying to get through Bagumba's as quickly, yet thoroughly, as possible, which is tough considering all the articles I have coming up for GA reviews now (damn backlog review drive, I had hoped those would trickle in but now it's an open faucet) and, ya know, my real job. I will get to it, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as an update, Jeter now has the most All-Star hits as a Yankee [22]. Not sure if it is that significant, but you might want to add it if you want. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I didn't notice. I'll add it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per this: Jeter is the all-time MLB leader in hits by a shortstop - He hasn't passed Ripken yet and then he becomes the AL leader - but that does not count Honus Wagner with - 3415 hits...Modernist (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you are mistaken. It is verified in this article that Jeter is the all time hits leader as a shortstop. Many of Wagner and Ripken's hits came at other positions. Jeter in fact passed Luis Aparicio to become the all-time hits leader for a shortstop. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per confirmed that Wagner played the outfield and other positions...Modernist (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support and a big thank you for your contributions on the New York Yankees' articles! Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: This article is vastly improved from the previous times I have seen it here, and I meant to comment earlier but waited for some of the work to be done. I apologise for jumping in now, late on. Also, I think it is very close to FA level now, but still needs work, and my oppose is (hopefully) temporary. My main concern is that the prose needs a bit of a polish. There are several lumpy parts and some sections do not flow. In addition, perhaps a little too much use is made of baseball-speak where more friendly, accessible language for non-baseballers may make the article more readable. Overall, good work and I look forward to switching to support. I've read to the end of "Minor leagues" so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

These items seem malleable enough. Hopefully that's a pretty weak oppose. Let me see what I can do in a few minutes... – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• "A five-time World Series champion, Jeter has been a central figure of the Yankees during their success of the 1990s and 2000s due to his hitting ability, baserunning, and leadership on the field and in the clubhouse": I think this sentence tries to do too much, and would be inclined to cut everything after "leadership". In addition, it runs the risk of slight POV as we have editorial voice which is saying he was a central figure because he was good at stuff. Maybe "critics regard him as a central figure". I would also suggest "central figure during the Yankees ["run of success" or just "successes" would be better here] of the 1990s and 2000s…"
  • Changed to "is regarded as a central figure" and cut off the sentence at "leadership"
• "Jeter continued to contribute during the team's championship seasons of 1998–2000": A little weak. Contributed how? To what extent?
  • It's a lead, the summary of the body. How much more should I jam in here?
• "Throughout his career, Jeter has contributed reliably to the Yankees' franchise successes in the postseason. He holds many postseason records, and has a .351 batting average in the World Series. Jeter has earned the titles of "Captain Clutch" and "Mr. November" due to his postseason heroics.[4][5]": Three instances of "postseason" in three sentences.
  • Cut out the first of the two, but I think the next two should remain as the records and the clutchiness are different, plus merging the two sentences creates a run on.
• "As a child, Jeter's parents made him sign a contract every year that set acceptable and unacceptable forms of behavior.[12] Dorothy instilled a positive attitude in her son, insisting that he not use the word "can't".[13]" To me, this is unnecessary detail for an article such as this and has little impact on the article. If a source could be found to say something like his parents simply instilled a positive attitude, or that he was close to them, that may be more appropriate.
  • This is meant to suggest his parents' role in shaping his personality. I think that'll become a bit more clear as you get further in the article. If you reach the end and still think it doesn't work, I can address it.
• "Watching Yankees player Dave Winfield inspired him to pursue baseball": Maybe "a career in baseball"
  • Okay.
• The first paragraph of "High School" is a rather uncomfortable list of statistics which needs smoothing out.
  • Took a shot at the first sentence. Not sure what else to do with it at the moment, but I can think about it.
• "Newhouser felt so strongly about Jeter's potential that he quit his job with Astros": Should this be "the Astros"? And, to me "quit his job" is a little informal, although that may just be an ENGVAR thing.
  • Yeah I think that's ENGVAR. After taking a minute with that, I think it's grammatical, but an American editor should confirm that for us.
• "Though Yankees officials were concerned that Jeter would attend college…" I know what this means and why they were concerned, but there is some possible confusion here in terms of "why would this worry them?"
  • Added the clause "forgoing the opportunity to sign a professional contract"
• "The Yankees selected Jeter, who chose to turn professional and signed with the Yankees for $800,000": Yankees…Yankees.
  • "The Yankees selected Jeter, who chose to turn professional, signing for $800,000"
• "Jeter batted 0-for-7 with five strikeouts": For the general reader, could this be rephrased as "did not [hit? My baseball is not good!] in seven innings, rather than use a baseball stat.
  • 0-for-7 means zero hits in seven times at-bat. The link to the 0-fer, spoken about somewhere above, was meant to link in a way to easily show that this was a pretty bad game.
• "Jeter struggled, batting .202 in 47 games." The first part of the sentence seems tacked on, and maybe should be smoothed with the previous sentence "For the rest of the season, Jeter struggled…"
  • "Jeter continued to struggle during the rest of the season"
• "In addition to being frustrated with his play, Jeter was homesick" Not sure this is quite grammatical here. Without some common theme, these two ideas do not really link. And "frustrated with his play" sounds ugly. Maybe "frustrated by his lack of success"?
  • "Frustrated by his lack of success and homesick, Jeter accrued $400-per-month phone bills from daily calls to his parents"
• "Weighing 156 pounds (71 kg), he did not have the appearance of the Yankees' future leader.": I cannot see the relevance (or importance) of his weight.
  • He was scrawny. "Weighing 156 pounds (71 kg), Jeter's scrawny appearance did not match his reputation as the Yankees' future leader."
• "to allow him more at-bats": There are a few examples like this where baseball-speak is preferred to more accessible language; why not "more opportunity to bat" or similar?
  • "allow him the opportunity to accrue more at-bats"
• "making nine errors in 48 chances": Don't make the reader follow the links, make it more explicit here in this sentence. I'm lost without clicking a link, and that is never great.
  • Added "and struggled defensively", which tells you that 9 errors in 48 chances is bad.
• "Baseball America ranked Jeter as the 44th-best prospect in baseball prior to the 1993 season": This comes across as a little harsh as 44 is not a number immediately associated with brilliance; why not "rated Jeter among the top 100 best prospects in baseball, ranking him at 44".
  • 44th is pretty good. Changed to "rated Jeter among the top 100 prospects in baseball prior to the 1993 season, ranking him 44th"
• 3rd and 4th paragraphs of Minor leagues become a bit list-y again, just reciting teams and stats. Could do to be smoothed.
  • Can take a look at that.

I would recommend, even at this late stage, asking a copy-editor to have a look for that final polish. If you have no objections, I may be able to do a little of that myself when I look at the rest of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think your suggestions made this a better article. By all means, I would be grateful if you'd copy edit further, or bring more points you find vague to my attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

More Comments: Read down to the end of 1999-2002, and made some copy-edits, but not sure my baseball is up to copy-editing this one too much. Still some pretty large prose concerns, and there is a general lack of polish to the article. I don't think we are a long way away, but I really think the whole article needs going over very carefully and checking for redundancy, "baseball speak", repetition and clumsy phrasing. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• "During MLB's 1994–95 work stoppage, Gene Michael, the Yankees' general manager, offered Jeter the opportunity to work out for the MLB team with replacement players in spring training prior to the 1995 season. Jeter denied receiving the offer, and did not cross the picket line.": Again, there are links to follow, but to someone unfamiliar this, the lack of context makes this baffling. What picket line?
  • That's the metaphorical picket line. Strikers vs. scabs, that sort of thing.
• MLB is expanded in the lead; is it worth expanding it in the main body as well?
  • My understanding is the rule is expand it once in the lead and once in the body. Since that wasn't done here, I did it in the "Draft" section, at the first use of the term.
• "he went 0-for-5 with one strikeout": Similar to the above, I really don't like this as it is impenetrable to non-baseballers. I vaguely follow it because I have a woolly understanding of the sport, but it does not make for easy understanding.
  • I'm not sure how else to explain it, given that the links are in the article. We can't use Jeter's article to define what a strikeout is.
• "To solidify the shortstop position...": Solidify seems an odd choice of word.
  • "provide depth to the team"
• "...Steinbrenner approved a trade that would have sent pitcher Mariano Rivera to the Seattle Mariners for shortstop Félix Fermín, but Michael, now the vice president of scouting, and assistant general manager Brian Cashman convinced Steinbrenner to give Jeter an opportunity": Not sure the names are needed here. What about "Steinbrenner planned to bring in another shortstop, but assistant general manager Brian Cashman convinced him to give Jeter an opportunity."
  • Well, Mariano Rivera is a big deal. Given their tenure together with the Yankees, I feel it's worth adding his name. As for Fermin, an interested reader can click on the link and see who the Yankees nearly acquired to use in place of Jeter. I think that's worthwhile.
• When rating Jeter as a future prospect, on what grounds were they judging him? Why was he still highly rated when it appears he had not achieved much?
  • Prospect ratings are so subjective. They're not basing it merely on minor league performance, but scouting and projections.
• "the Yankees started Jeter at shortstop on Opening Day, the first Yankee rookie to do so since Tom Tresh in 1962.": The first rookie to do what? Start at shortstop? Start on opening day? A little vague, and the repetition of Yankee is clunky.
  • "Jeter started on Opening Day, the first Yankee rookie to start as shortstop for the team since Tom Tresh in 1962
• "He hit his first MLB home run that day. With his speed and ability to hit and run, Jeter complemented leadoff hitter Tim Raines from the ninth spot in the batting order.": Says who? Looks like editorial voice.
  • Yeah, not written well. My bad.
• "Coming off of his Rookie of the Year campaign": Off of is very clunky.
  • "Following his Rookie..."
• "On the season, he batted .324 with a league-leading 127 runs": I've never seen "on the season" used this way in a formal encyclopaedia article before. Also, in the same section, "At season's end".
  • I personally don't see a problem with either wording. It's slightly different wording to try to not repeat phrases.
  • Okay, Hamilton commented on it too, so now it's "In the season"
• "and is widely considered to be one of the greatest of all time": I'm not sure 2 refs from 1998 are particularly convincing for saying that they are "widely considered". It needs something better.
• "Jeter and the Yankees went to salary arbitration before the 1999 season": Why?
  • It was his first year he was eligible for it. I've rewritten to say so. In MLB, the team renews your salary for the first few years, almost always near the league minimum. Then you're arbitration eligible for a few years. Then you become eligible for free agency. Again, we can't detail all of that in the article, hence the wikilink.
• "appearing in his second All-Star game in the process": In the process of what? This is preceded by a list of stats.
  • In the process of compiling those stats. I changed it to "that year"
• 1999-2002: first paragraph ends with another list of stats which makes for hard reading.
  • Slightly rearranged
• "Steinbrenner did not want to set a salary record and delayed a response while Juan González and the Detroit Tigers negotiated on a reported eight-year, $143 million contract extension. When that agreement fell through, so did Jeter's tentative deal.": I'm struggling to see a connection between these two events.
  • Steinbrenner didn't want to give out the biggest contract in baseball, so he waited until after Gonzalez was to sign a deal bigger than Jeter's. That Gonzalez deal didn't happen. I tried to clarify that.
• "including a go-ahead two-run single": What is this?
  • The two RBI single put the team ahead for good. Rewritten.
• "Jeter became the second-highest-paid athlete, trailing only Rodriguez": Highest paid athlete in all sport? America? The world?
  • All athletes worldwide. The link in the sentence demonstrates that.
• "not an attempt by Rodriguez to criticize Jeter.[64] However, in the April 2001 issue of Esquire, Rodriguez criticized Jeter. Rodriguez was quoted as saying "Jeter's been blessed ..." I've tweaked this, but it is terribly clunky and hard to read. In a short space, we have 3 "Rodriguez", 3 "Jeter", and 2 "criticise". There's a few similar examples of redundancy, and the article should be carefully checked for these.
  • In fairness, I just wrote that yesterday (or the day before?) from scratch. I figured I'd be working on it in the next few days, as that story is one of the latter points remaining from Bagumba's list. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Jeter made a notable defensive play...": This is then described in detail. Why does this one incident justify such a long description? Why is it notable? Who said so? And as a non-baseballer, I'm struggling to see from the description what was so notable about it.
  • The Flip is a big f'ing deal in baseball circles. Even amongst Jeter haters, who recoil at the mention of it and how it's used to propel Jeter to such legendary status. I'll take out the "Jeter made a notable defensive play" sentence since that's a bit redundant to me.
  • Well, I could, but then I'd have to figure out how to rewrite the intro to it.
• "Despite Jeter's highlight moments that postseason, Jeter slumped at the plate": Highlight moments? Jeter ... Jeter.
  • Rewritten
• Section ends with another list of stats. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

More comments: I've now read to the end, but I'm afraid the more I read, the more concerned I am. While I have listed some problems below, the overall feel of the article is not quite right. The main issue for me is that it is written for baseballers. There is no concession, beyond a few small points, to the general reader, and the responses of the nominator to my points and those of Hamiltonstone below do not seem to suggest that he sees it as a problem. For a FA, while there is no need to explain the rules and history of the whole sport, there should be enough explanation and context so that a reader can comfortably read it without becoming lost. In addition, I do not think links alone are enough; in a FA, the reader should not be made to click any more than is absolutely necessary. Getting this balance right is the key to readable prose in a sports article, and I do not think we are there yet. Besides this, there are other prose issues as I commented earlier, and I feel that the stats are overdone quite a lot in the article, and make for dull reading. Fewer stats and more commentary would be a way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply that I don't see the merit in what you're saying; I do. This article has to be accessible to the general audience. However, it seems to me that a number of your comments (and Hamilton's) are beyond the scope of Jeter's article, and do require someone with no baseball knowledge to click some of the links. I'm in the process of working on the prose, giving context to the numbers. I haven't gotten to all of the listing-of-stats comments you've brought up yet, but will in the next few days. I think I may be a bit frustrated that this nomination, now two months old, has gotten a number of !support votes, only to now see you and Hamilton are bringing up legitimate issues. I don't mean to come across as obstinate because of that. I am working through all suggestions as best I can, but since I'm so deeply attached to this article (just look at the percentage of edits on this article that are mine), it's hard for me to see some of its issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• "to lead the Yankees to a 2 games to 1 series lead" and "With the score tied at 3": Shouldn't the numbers be given in words?
  • For both examples, I decided those details weren't necessary, so I deleted them. If I would've kept them, I agree they should've been spelled out.
• "against the rival Boston Red Sox": The way this is written, it appears that they were playing a "renegade" team called the Red Sox; I think it should be "their rivals, the Boston Red Sox". But there is immediate repetition of "Red Sox" which is tricky to avoid but reads poorly.
  • Done. And a link to Yankees–Red Sox rivalry has been added.
• "Nixon hit a pop fly down the left field line..." ????
  • Pop fly wasn't linked, and I've fixed that.
• Again, I am not sure why this Nixon incident requires such detailing. While appreciating that you can probably make a good baseball argument for its inclusion, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the general reader of a FA.
  • I pared down on excess wording. It was a major play in the context of his career and needs to be included. Hopefully the way I changed the paragraph helps the flow and makes it more clear. It can also help with one of the last remaining points on Bagumba's checklist, putting the defense (awards and criticism) into chronology.
• I'm not too convinced either by long sections of stats and awards in the 2003-2008 and 2009-Present sections (again, I feel I should point out that this is a potential FA, not an article in a sports publication: I cannot see the general interest in the Grand Slam stat), nor by further discussion of player signings. While each one may feel essential when writing it, the overall impression is a little draining for the reader.
  • Fair enough on the grand slam, I was borderline on mentioning that. Do you have any suggestions to make this less "draining"?
• Also, lots of repetitive sentences in this section: lots of sentences starting "he" or "Jeter", and far too many "however"s. I'm also becoming overwhelmed by the number of times "batted" is used in the article; some variety would be beneficial.
  • There aren't that many ways to express a batting average.
• Another issue I have is that by this point, we are well into his career. Yet reading the lists of stats, games awards and achievements, I really do not get the impression that this was a special player (which I believe he is, even with my lack of baseball), but just some guy playing baseball. Where are the accolades (not just the XYZ award) received at the time, comments by coaches, etc. After the early part of his career, there seems to be nothing, just another batting stat.
• "with Damon moving to second and Jeter to the leadoff role, based on the rationale that Jeter had a higher OBP than Damon, but grounded into double plays more often": I'm afraid this means nothing to me.
  • Reworded - "based on the rationale that Jeter was more likely to get on base than Damon, but also more likely to ground into double plays, which would nullify Damon if he got on base ahead of Jeter". Does that make more sense?
• "Jeter and Rodriguez began to rekindle their friendship together during the season, as Jeter acknowledged that Rodriguez was making an attempt to change, and Jeter began to accept Rodriguez's personal differences.": Three "Jeter" in one sentence, and this comes completely out of the blue with no context or follow-up.
• Five paragraphs on 2010 and 2011 is completely out of proportion to any of the other seasons. Are the seasons so significant in the context of his whole career, or is this a touch of recentism?
  • I think they are. To the earlier point about the earlier 2000s being lists of stats and awards, I don't recall there being much to say about Jeter (aside that he was awesome, which I can work on expanding). In 2010 and 2011, we had discussions of his downslide. Also, various career milestones were achieved. That said, we can work to cut down the 2010 and 2011 and expand the earlier years a bit.
• "He suffered a calf injury on June 13 that required his fifth career 15-day disabled list stint, and his first since 2003": First what: calf injury or stint on the disabled list?
• "Jeter finished the day with five hits in five at bats": Now, this is nice and accessible for the general reader; could some of those 0-for-5s be changed to be more like this?
• 7th paragraph of 2009-present has far too many instances of 3,000th and to the general reader, some of these feats seem a little trivial and not worth such great detail.
  • Cut one of the "3000th"'s out. I'll think about what to cut from the paragraph.
  • I cut the bit about hitting the home run for his 3000th. That was the more trivial bit, as the fact that no Yankee had ever joined the club, despite the franchise's storied history (Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, many others), did get a lot of press.
• "Jeter has avoided major controversy": By your own admission above, there are "Jeter haters". What of these? Why do they hate him? I also notice a few instances of controversy within other comments on this page. What about these? It even says a few paragraphs down from here "The controversy over Jeter's fielding..."
  • The Yankees are a high profile team that many people hate. Jeter is a proxy for that. Some people hate Jeter because they feel he's treated with kid gloves by the media, maybe that should be added. I will change it to say "major controversy in his personal life" or "major personal controversy".
• "Always respectful, he referred to Torre as "Mr. Torre".": Why does this one instance require inclusion? Why not a more generic reference to his "respectfulness"? To whom was he respectful?
  • Thinking about how to deal with this one... It's one of Bagumba's comments above.
• Rather than more stats in the "Post-season" section, why not compare his performances with his rivals or other great players?
• "He is credited positioning himself well and a quick release in his throwing motion.": This does not make sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Came to this article just because it seemed to be languishing somewhat. Don't normally review sport-related material, so not looking at this in-depth. Inclined to agree with Sarastro.

• Just glanced at one paragraph and didn't understand its first sentence: "With one year remaining until he would become eligible for free agency..." No idea what free agency is, and it isn't linked.
  • Linked to free agent
• The first sentences in the body of the article that talks about his baseball performance read: "For the baseball team, Jeter batted .557 in his sophomore year and .508 average as a junior.[1] In his senior year, he batted .508 and compiled 23 runs batted in (RBI), 21 walks, four home runs, a .637 on-base percentage (OBP), a .831 slugging percentage (SLG), 12 stolen bases (in 12 attempts), and just one strikeout". Trouble is, unless you know something about baseball, these figures mean absolutely nothing. Was he good at any of these things? Bad? Indifferent? Can editors give some sort of indication from the sources as to whether these were promising figures or not?
  • Context added
• "He finished second in the SAL in triples (11)". What's a triple? No link.
  • Linked. The rest I'll get to tomorrow
• "On the season, he batted..." What does "On the season" mean? Or is this a typo, and should read "In the season?"
  • Means the same thing, I think. Since Sarastro commented on this too, I changed it to "In the season"
• Para beginning "During Jeter's contract negotiations..." To a lay person, this all reads like relatively inconsequential detail that doesn't particularly pertain to Jeter's playing career. Baseball people may get a significance to this sort of detail that I don't, but I'm not sure why it's included. There are individual snippets like that elsewhere - stuff about the to-ing and fro-ing of contract negotiations that seem pretty unimportant. I understand why we want to know those occasions when, for example, he was awarded a huge contract, or the first time he got arbitration, or if he was traded between teams, but otherwise...dunno.
  • Money is a big part of sports, especially in the era of free agency where some of the best players change teams whenever they become free agents. Jeter is one of the rare players to stay with the same team for his entire career (so far, anyway. *knock on wood*). What a player earns is a part of the story, and the article would be incomplete if it didn't include information on his salaries. You understand why we need to include the ten year contract that made him the second highest paid player in sports. The negotiations he had in 2010 were pretty nasty in the press, and so I think it can't be avoided, lest the article appear to whitewash a negative incident. For the sake of completeness, I think his earlier salaries made through arbitration are important information as well, and it might be jarring to add salary information in only the big contract and his current contract, without giving context on what he made prior.
• Similar example, relating to teams/coaches rather than money: "Without center fielder Bernie Williams, who was not retained after the 2005 season, Torre reportedly considered moving Jeter or Rodriguez to center field in 2006.[90] Instead, the Yankees signed Johnny Damon to play center field and lead off..." Really, why does a reader seeking the important info about Jeter care about Torre's inner thoughts, particularly when they don't actually get implemented?
  • Shortstop is considered by many to be the most difficult and demanding defensive position. Many great Hall of Fame shortstops (Ernie Banks, Robin Yount, Cal Ripken, Jr., for instance) have changed positions as they got older. Given Jeter's advancing age, and questions about his defensive ability, there has naturally been much discussion since about 2005 about whether or not Jeter should change positions, and if so, when and to where. Not mentioning this would leave the biography of Jeter incomplete.
• Under 1999-2002 it states "His season totals in batting average, runs, hits, runs batted in, doubles (37), triples (9), home runs (24), SLG (.552), and OBP (.438) are all personal bests". Just checking: the present tense means be never improved on any of these figures in a seasons. Given there are nine different statistics involved, this seems a little unlikely, but if that's right, then fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • He was at his peak then. It was certainly one of his best seasons, and those are all personal bests to this day, and likely for good as he's unlikely to top any of those numbers as he gets closer to 40 years of age.[23] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• 2003-2008. What is an "All-Star break"?
  • Term linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• what is an "extra-base hit"?
  • Term linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Why is the 1994-1995 Major League Baseball Strike referred to as a "work stoppage"? I don't understand why this link needs piping - the article title seems clear. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't remember why it was piped like that. I unpiped it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• "but also more likely to ground into double plays, which would nullify Damon if he got on base ahead of Jeter". Sorry, but this is incomprehensible to a lay reader, and can't be fixed with a link. Just simplify or drop the rationale altogether, and just tell us they were switched (characterise the reason in more general terms). Really, this is not an article for a baseball magazine. I want the article to make FA, but it has to lighten up a little. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That was my attempt to make it more understandable to the lay person. Since it didn't work, I'll drop it.
• He has been awarded the title of "Captain Clutch". While I can surmise what is meant by Mr November, "Captain Clutch" completely evades me. Either explain it (please, not another link), or delete it.
  • Well, forgive me for linking to Clutch (sports), but it should be linked as well. I added "ability to perform under pressure", the definition of "clutch", to the end of the sentence.
    • OK, it'sa regional dialect thing ;-) Link forgiven, thanks for that. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Those of us likely to pick up a baseball bat by the wrong end out of inexperience might struggle with this article. In other respects it looks pretty good, carefully referenced, and a very engaging read (for a sports enthusiast!) :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There are a lot of citations in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE, it seems that these citations are redundant as the info is already backed up in the body. Basilisk4u (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You're right. I moved all citations out of the lead: each of those articles are still cited in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: The Yankees drafted Jeter, who chose to turn professional, signing for $800,000
• Source: Since Jeter had received an $800,000 signing bonus, he felt as if every pair of eyes was scrutinizing him.
• Article: Coming off of his strong 1993 season, Baseball America rated Jeter as the 16th-best prospect in baseball.
• Source: 16. Derek Jeter, ss, Yankees
• Article: Jeter batted .234 and committed two errors in 13 games before being demoted to Class AAA Columbus; Fernández replaced Jeter at shortstop.
• Source: Shortstop Derek Jeter, who hit .234 and made two errors in 13 games, was demoted because the Yankees want to shift Tony Fernandez from second base to shortstop.
• Article: In the 2002 postseason, the Anaheim Angels defeated the Yankees in the ALDS on their way to winning the World Series.
• Source: Jeter, who dislocated his left shoulder on opening day in Toronto, had not been to Yankee Stadium as an active player since the first round of the playoffs last October, when the Anaheim Angels knocked off the Yankees to begin a monthlong joyride.
• Article: Jeter went 1-for-2 in the game, moving into fourth all-time with a .458 average among players with a minimum of 12 plate appearances in the All-Star Game.
• Source: Full reference is not given (145: Jenks, Jayson (July 11, 2012). "Back in game, Jeter rises on star chart".)
• Article: Regarding his official residence, Jeter settled a tax dispute with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in 2008.
• Source: ALBANY, N.Y. -- Derek Jeter settled his case with tax officials, who had said the New York Yankees' captain should have paid three years of taxes as a New York state resident.
• Article: He had cameo appearances in the comedy films Anger Management and The Other Guys.
• Source: The Yankees captain and five-time world champion is playing a fictionalized version of himself in the upcoming Will Ferrell flick "The Other Guys," which was being filmed yesterday at Nathan's Famous in Coney Island...It's not the first time Jeter's played himself on the silver screen; he also had a cameo in the 2003 Adam Sandler-Jack Nicholson comedy, "Anger Management."
• Article: Jeter has won five Gold Glove Awards, more than all shortstops with the exception of Smith, Aparicio, Omar Vizquel, and Mark Belanger.
• Source: It was his fifth Gold Glove, which Aaron Gleeman of NBC Sports noted is more Gold Gloves than Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Luis Aparicio, and Mark Belanger.
  • No issues except the incomplete citation number 145. Graham Colm (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Decided to step in and fix up the citation so it can be checked. Hopefully this is okay with everybody. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• I can't see one. Graham Colm (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was done in one of the three past FAC's, if not all three. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Words to avoid, replace "claim" with "noted", "stated" or similar, especially in the section about his income tax or lack thereof ("claim" can carry an implication of doubt). Also for Tony Tarasco's "claim" about his questionable catching abilities :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take hold of that today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the Tarasco "claim". As far as Jeter's taxes, isn't "claimed residency" the proper phrase? After all, it was called into question. I don't think we can put it forward that he did establish residency. And it's not that he simply stated he was a Florida resident, he claimed he was on legal documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CLAIM, "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter."

Since the statement was called into question, I'm not confident that this usage of the word "claim" is appropriate and NPOV given the context. Let me know if you disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably ok as part of a commonly known legal phrase (in German it would be the great noun "Lebensmittelpunkt"), but i would rephrase it without the bad cl-word, just to be on the safe side. GermanJoe (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say I am confident the usage is appropriate. I'll see how to rephrase it, unless any English experts say it's ok. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.