Talk:2010 Baseball Hall of Fame balloting

Untitled

As you may have noticed, I've decided it would be good to give any significant info about the upcoming candidates (major season awards, notable accumulation of "lesser" awards). While I got the idea from the 2007 HOF Balloting page (which noted how many new candidates had 500 hrs, 3000 hits, etc.), I thought it was a good idea for the reader to get a quick idea of what exactly the ballot consisted of. I was thinking of doing the same for all the other pages, and will do that over time, unless someone convinces me that it is a bad idea. Thanks!--Masternachos (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This year's results/ Andre Dawson 420 77.9% Bert Blyleven 400 74.2% Roberto Alomar 397 73.7% Jack Morris 282 52.3% Barry Larkin 278 51.6% Lee Smith 255 47.3% Edgar Martinez 195 36.2% Tim Raines 164 30.4% Mark McGwire 128 23.7% Alan Trammell 121 22.4% Fred McGriff 116 21.5% Don Mattingly 87 16.1% Dave Parker 82 15.2% Dale Murphy 63 11.7% Harold Baines 33 6.1% Andres Galarraga 22 4.1% Robin Ventura 7 1.3% Ellis Burks 2 0.4% Eric Karros 2 0.4% Kevin Appier 1 0.2% Pat Hentgen 1 0.2% David Segui 1 0.2% Mike Jackson 0 0.0% Ray Lankford 0 0.0% Shane Reynolds 0 0.0% Todd Zeile 0 0.0% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.68.12.101 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2010/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Let's see...

   • Elections to select players were held prior to the 2009 inductions; the next election for players whose careers began in 1943 or later is scheduled for the 2011 class of inductees, while the next election for players active prior to that point is scheduled for the 2014 class. Not altogether clear what this means. The wikilink in "2009 inductions" suggest that these choices were made before the 2009 choices, which is it a bit baffling.
     •  Done
   • The induction ceremonies were held on July 25, 2010 Multiple ceremonies, or multiple inductions in one ceremony? Either way, this doesn't seem to be addressed in the body of the article at all, so it's not really lead-worthy.
     •  DoneRemoved
   • The BBWAA was again authorized to elect players active in 1990 or later "again" is meaningless puffery. On the one hand, it does nothing to help a reader who reads this article (because it's a GA) in a vacuum, and on the other, it's fairly obvious.
   • whose last appearance was in 2004. Vague phrasing. Suggest who last played in 2004.
     •  Done
   • a record low, besting the previous year's record of 13 Does a record low best a previous mark? Suggest "displacing" or "offsetting" or something like that.
     •  Done now displaced
   • which now takes place prior to inductions in even-numbered years[10], Not really a prose issue, but punctuation must precede the citation.
     •  Done
       • • • Prose review is not complete. Much too sleepy to continue fine-toothing.
   • This committee is already guaranteed of one new voter As far as dated statements go, this isn't a terrible one, but it still could be avoided - This committee will have at least one new voter or keep the phrase as is but drop "already"
     •  Done Removed already
   • Mostly a personal preference here, but As noted earlier, Roberts died in 2010, meaning that this committee will have at least one new member when it reconvenes for the 2012 election process. I'd ditch the self-reference and go with Roberts' 2010 death means that this committee ....
     •  Done
   • It recognizes a sportswriter "for meritorious contributions to baseball writing". Quotes need conspicuous citations. If this is covered by [14], move it there.
     •  Done
   • On December 8 at baseball's winter meetings, Bill Madden was announced as the recipient. His full name was given just a sentence or two ago. No need to give it again.
     •  Done

   B. MOS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: All links are live, which is good. A few citations lack publisher, and it should be easily available for citation 11, the Washington Post.

   • •  Done Added publisher for citation 11

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: I'd put conspicuous citations next to the votes tables. It took me a few moments to realize these did in fact have a citation.

   • •  Done
       • I think you may have misunderstood a little. Citing every line in the table looks a bit goofy. I just meant a conspicuous citation for the tables themselves. Those that precede them in the prose are sufficient (if they were there previously, my apologies, I missed them)
   • Is there a citation for the paragraph directly preceding the "Managers/umpires ballot" heading?" It's not really contentious stuff, so a citation isn't absolutely required, but it'd be nice considering there isn't one at all in the paragraph.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text: That image of Dawson is ugly as sin. All those pixels, and his face is so covered by shadow you can't really even make it out. On Dawson's own article, it's better than nothing, but I don't really think it is here. The Herzog pic could easily be moved up to be the lead image. If kept, it (and the Herzog pic) should have ALT text. File:ADawson.jpg could easily replace the pixel-y profile picture we have. It also has unsightly stray pixels, but they're not visible when the image is in thumbnail size.

   • •  DoneAdded alternate text to Herzog and moved his picture up. As for Dawson, the pictures are right on top of each other if he would be moved down (due to the structure of the article) so opted to remove the Dawson pic altogether.
       • Well, the other option was to leave Dawson as the lead image, but replace it with File:ADawson.jpg, and leave Whitey (tee hee) where he was. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
         • I find that a much better idea. Added the Dawson pic and moved Whitey down.--LAAFan 01:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
           • Looks great. Not a glamor shot of Dawson like the other was trying to be, but my god, those pixels....
           • Any chance at some ALT text though? I suppose I could have at it myself. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
             • I did put alt text on the pics, but I am horrible at alt text.--LAAFan 16:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
               • Hm, it's not showing up when I load the article without images. I'll take a closer look at it. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
   • (outdent) The parameter is "alt=" (lower case), and yeah, your attempted alt text wasn't very good. It should not simply restate the caption – it should describe the image itself. I've put in more suitable alt text, and will now pass the article. Well done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Overall

   Pass or Fail: Review not quite complete, but there's certainly some work to be done. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   A few bolts left to tighten, and you'll be there. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because it has a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The lead is also formatted weirdly, with three short paragraphs then one long paragraph. Is anyone willing to address these concerns or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)