Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [1].

Jackie Robinson[edit]

Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk); BillTunell (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. I took this article through GA and one FAC about a year ago. I disengaged after that, and User:BillTunell then put in 1250! edits during two more unsuccessful FACs. It's hard to say exactly why it wasn't promoted, but all the sources questioned and non-free images objected to have been removed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is informative, well structured, and interesting. There are some writing and historical issues that I will bring up on the article talk page, but that I will summarize here. I'll leave it to others more knowledgeable to deal with sources and images. I did check for dabs with the tool, and there are none. My issues are dealt with. Nice article.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC) *footnotes in lead? [reply]

  • relating to CR movement and Robinson's career as a precursor to it
  • some word choices, wordiness, and wording issues

These are "generally" the issues I have. I'll bring up the specifics on the talk page and report back here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator comments

From the last FAC nonmination, there appear to be two classes of outstanding issues:

(1) Non-free pictures. There are only two: the Satchel Paige pic (here)] and the Pasadena statue/memorial pic, now removed. I thought the latter would be non-controversial by now (there's an established guideline for pics of public statues), but I guess it isn't. The former I expected to be controversial, and I suspect that whatever the rationale, someone will always object to any non-free pic in an FA-nominated article.

I'll still argue for the inclusion of the Satchel Paige pic as the "significant" under criterion #8 of the policy on non-free-content). user:Jappalang, among others, has argued against its significance. Despite the fact that the picture has been removed from the current verison of hte aarticle, I'd like I'd like closure on the rule interprtetation from wikiadmisntrators if possible. Otherwise I consider it as a candidate for re-insertion later.

(2) Reliablility of sources. Basically this relates to my conversation with user:Giants2008 concerning reliability rules in the last nomination phase. The issue here is whether a claim that is otherwise referenced using a reliabe footnote can be supplemented with backup footnotes from less-reliable sources that nonetheless have some other rationale for inclusion. The way I read the rule, every claim within the article's text has to have at least one reliable citation. The scope of the issue seems to be down to about 5-6 footnotes, because I've previoulsy eliminated any footnotes that seemed worthless or merely duplicative. I think the only furtherchange I anticipate making here would be elimination of the SportMag.us biography footnotes. BillTunell (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out all the refs that Giants2008 objected to, including the sportmag one. User:DCGeist and User:Eubulides have also adjusted the refs a ton (thanks guys). Here's the diff. Apparently we've made 142 edits since. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've done a lot of work, which I'm still reviewing -- but so far it looks good. One request: can we re-insert the BlackFivesBlog citation? Although it's a blog, it's well-researched with unique content. user:Giants2008 didn't have a problem with it necessaily, he just asked for a defense of the blog content, which I later provided. BillTunell (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't bother me, although its more up to the reviewers. We might put it in the External link section, although it's probably frowned upon by Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the Larry Lester source is reliable. He has founded a negro league museum and worked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. His list of novels (see here) about black baseball is also very extensive. I've removed the two school refs, and I'll remove the mrbaseball.com one as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not remove the Mr.Baseball reference. The website is not the source; the source is the article author, Jules Tygiel who, like Lester, is an accomplished biogrpaher of Robinson. It just happens to be hosted on Mr.Basebnall.com.
The Sharon Robinson sentence is not sourced to a wikipedia article. It's sourced to the books referenced in the sentence, and an independent newspaper artice. I've inserted additioanl language ot make that clear.
I don't really care about the school footnotes, but for the purpose for which they are cited (i.e., confirming the existence of the elementary schools referenced), there is nothing unreliable about them. The schools exist. BillTunell (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you're not citing to the actual school website, you're citing to some sort of aggregator site, so the reliability or unreliability comes into play. As for Mrbaseball, do they have permission to host that information on their site? How do we know they reliably transcribed it? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the school stuff. I found at least one of the actual schools website, but it looked kinda funky. We add some schools with better refs probably, if we care. I removed the mrbaseball ref and replaced it with a book by the same author. It said exactly the same stuff. I think the mrbaseball site was just taking excerpts from his book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just the missing publisher now. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really hopping. I'm not sure which ref is missing its publisher. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was ref 191 (Announcement of the recipients...) earlier, but that bit in the parenthesis gives the first part of the ref. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support

What can I say? Once in a while you come across an article that has an exceptional subject, is fact-filled, and has a narrative that flows, the happy confluence of a reviewer's dream. Although the ending perhaps was a little abrupt, and here and there I noticed a few speed-bumps in the prose (and one spelling mistake), pointing them out now would be bad form. I'll leave a post on the talk page later sometime. Yours was one of the few articles on Wikipedia that I've enjoyed reading start to finish. Let me offer the authors my congratulations on a rare effort and hope you receive your FA star very soon. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And if there are any spelling errors left please don't be shy in pointing them out. BillTunell (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – It makes me happy to see that the sourcing quality is much better this time around. I'll offer a few prose nit-picks to help in that respect, and would like to go through the article myself at some point. Wil probably wait until after an image review to support, given the questions asked in the past.

  • I suggest placing MLB in parentheses after the first use of Major League Baseball. This will avoid any possible confusion regarding the initials.
  • In a similar vein, consider spelling out MVP in the award. Sports fans would know what an MVP is by heart, but we can't assume that all of our readers will.
  • Watch for overlinking. Early in the body, I see a link to gang (a common word) and multiple links to Matthew Robinson where just one would do. A couple later examples of unnecessary repeat links are the Los Angeles Bulldogs and Kansas City Monarchs.
  • Third paragraph of Military career: I don't understand what Robinson not smoking has to do with the charges made by the commander. Was a smoking-related charge among those not mentioned?
  • Negro Leagues: "began to scout the Negro leagues for a possible addition to the Dodgers' roster." Capitalize "leagues"?
Wikipedia does not capitalize the "L" in Negro leagues, unless it in some way is incorporated into a proper name (like "Negro League All-Star Game"). See this discussion and WP:MOSCAP. The Negro leagues were never unified into a single organizaton and therefore are not referred to collectively as a proper noun. This treatment is also in line with the usage at Negro league baseball. So I've changed this back to the original usage. BillTunell (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The offer allowed Robinson to leave the Monarchs with their grueling bus rides behind". If "with" was replaced by "and", or "along with", the flow of this sentence would be much better. Try it and see for yourselves.
  • Skipping to 1947: "Greenberg had advised him that the best way to combat the slurs from the opposing dugout was to beat them on the field." The way this reads, it sounds like "them" is in reference to the slurs, but I know this isn't the intention. Perhaps "the slurs from opposing players"?

Writing looks pretty solid overall. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've implemented your suggestions.[3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I think all the images are verifiably free. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One quick referencing flaw I found while doing some formatting work: The Baseball-Reference Bullpen (reference 241) is a wiki, and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source, unlike the rest of the Baseball-Reference site. A different reference will be needed for the intentional walk note. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed it. It was already double refed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine, One of the things I was disappointed in from BillTunnel's efforts was the inability to find information about the Robinson-Walter O'Malley and Robinson-Rickey relationships mentioned at O'Malley's article. Do you have any information in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but I could probably add some if you think that it fits in this article without going into to much detail. This has a lot (as you probably know). I didn't happen to run into much on him when I was doing the GA research, so I don't know how important it is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the link you posted, O'Malley should be mentioned in the Robinson article in some way. The two bios should mesh on issues of there relationship to a degree if both are reliably sourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention him. It says "Robinson's Hollywood exploits, however, did not sit well with Dodgers co-owner Walter O'Malley, who referred to Robinson as "Rickey's prima donna".[141] In late 1950, Rickey's contract as the Dodgers' team President expired. Weary of constant disagreements with O'Malley, and with no hope of being re-appointed as President of the Dodgers, Rickey cashed out his one-quarter financial interest in the team, leaving O'Malley in full control of the franchise." I can certainly add more, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: I'm still nto sure in understand your comment. But if the information you're talking about is already contained in the Walter O'Malley article, then we shouldn't be duplicting the same content in another article. If it's different content then I'm not sure what you want to add. At the end of the day, IMO, what you're suggesting is a talk page topic (future improviement of the article) not an FAC review topic (review of the current article under FAC criteria). BillTunell (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that paragraph. That is sufficient for this topic. My primary issues in prior FACs have all been addressed. I am now able to support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments
All in all this is a great article; however, there are a few things that are lacking a source-
  • He single-handedly kept the Dodgers in the race for the 1951 pennant. During the final game of the regular season, against Philadelphia, he made a season-saving defensive play in the 12th inning and then hit a game-winning home run in the 14th. This forced a three-game playoff against the Giants.
  • The graves are located about a half-mile south of the Jackie Robinson Parkway, which bisects the cemetery.
  • The Yankees' Mariano Rivera is the last player in the major leagues to wear jersey number 42 on a regular basis.
  • Robinson also has an asteroid named after him, 4319 Jackierobinson.

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added refs, and changed the wording a little bit when the ref info was different than what the article had.[4] I see a typo on that diff, which I'll also fix. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Jackie Robinson Foundation will open The Jackie Robinson Museum on Canal Street in the west side of Lower Manhattan in 2010, I think it should be mentioned and be included as a part of the family etc. section.
  • Questions - How old was Jackie Robinson Jr. in 1971? When were Sharon and David born? Weren't there better black star ballplayers than Jackie Robinson, like Josh Gibson, Monte Irvin, Satchel Paige who were resentful that he was selected over them in 1947 to be the first to play in the majors?...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm trying to find the source for this I read it somewhere (maybe Bill James) - Robinson was getting criticized from both ends. The big star veterans of the Negro Leagues were for the most part too old, and they decided on JR because he was a good ballplayer and old enough to take the heat.
  • Good suggestions. I've started implementing them. Do you have a ref for the museum? I did a few quick searches, and only found stuff from 2008, saying it would open in 2009. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done, - as an aside Henry Aaron wrote in his autobiography how JR's success in the majors fueled his own ambitions and served as an inspiration to his entire generation of black ballplayers...Modernist (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An extremely well written article. Great sources, and very well put together. This is certainly featured article material.

Oppose on criterion 3 - These issues should be easy to fix.

  • File:Jackie robinson story.jpg - Link to source needs to be fixed and license needs to be fixed (see conflicting information between dates in license and publication date).
  • I've finished fixing this one up. Notice that the license used to say it was in the PD because it was published before 1923, but the date of publication was listed as 1950. Now the license says it was published between 1923 and 1977 and the copyright was not renewed (verified by the LOC). Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jrobinson.jpg - Who is Bob Sandberg? This image is under copyright if he is one of Look's photographers and we would need to investigate this further.
  • I added a link to the source identifying him as a Look photographer to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and fixed this. Note that the image description listed the publication date at 1951, but the license claimed that the image was in the PD because it was published before 1923. I'm fixed this by substituting the correct license. Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jackie Robinson Memorial.JPG - I agree with the uploader of this image that there probably is no copyright in this image, but I would feel more comfortable if others weighed in on this, perhaps a Commons admin?
  • I consider this matter settled - thanks to everyone for weighing in and PF for his research. Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to striking this quickly. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at them. I'll fix them tonight and tomorrow.
Jackie robinson story.jpg fixed - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the memorial photo, I agree that there is no copyright concern. For anyone interested, I spelled out my thoughts on it here. -Pete (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did some research on sculpture copyrights and originality. This book talks a little bit about the amount of originality needed with regard to three dimensional sculptures. Someone tried to assert copyright on a plastic version of a PD cast iron bank. They were rejected. It's 3D to 3D, not 2D to 3D, but I would think it wold work the same with 2D to 3D. The point is that sculptures can lack originality, and in that case, I would think a 3D number would be about as unoriginal as one can get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some research on Bob Sandberg. It looks like he was a member of the Look magazine staff, so his photos should be public domain. This book says he was on their staff. He did a ton of covers for them, to the point I don't think they'd be letting him do that many freelance. Plus, the LOC has so many of his Look photos, again, I don't think he's freelance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jackie Robinson No5 comic book cover.jpg: Not sure what you mean when you say the dates don't match up.
OK, some of the images aren't totally clear cut. If what I've said here, plus Pete's comment, is enough, I'll leave them in. If you're not sure about any of them, I'll just remove the ones you're unsure of. Copyright stuff is always hard. Even a lawyer wouldn't necessarily be able to tell you, they'd just say it can only be determined by a court. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for the image love. Sorry you had to do so much yourself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jackie_Robinson/archive4&oldid=1138464313"