User:LL08

Bio

About me

I'm a college student that enjoys sports, and sports history. One of my favorite sports is baseball. The best player of all time, in my opinion, was Barry Bonds. He holds the record for most home runs in a career at 762. Growing up watching the San Francisco Giants, it is great to be able to learn so much about the club on one site.

Wikipedia activities

Typically, I enjoy Wikipedia for the purpose of learning more about my interests. During the course of the class I'm attending I hope to be able to add information others find interesting. My main source of information though, comes from non-fiction books.

Article Evaluation

I have grown up being a fan of sports, especially baseball. Recently, one of the greatest players to ever step foot on the field, Willie Mays, has passed away. Due to his passing, I decided to visit the The Catch (baseball) article on Wikipedia. While reviewing the article I found that it held up very well over the years, but could use updates to its citations, and unnecessary information

How the Article has Held Up

The article has done a fantastic job of explaining in great detail what occurred on Sep 29, 1954. It includes scientific reasoning and explanation as to why this event is significant. The graphics shown in the article also work well as a visual aid for people that are not as familiar with the sport. When looking at the graphic it can be seen how far the ball traveled and the distance Mays traveled in order to catch it.

Updates to Citations

Although the article is very in depth and well written I would have to say it may need an update to its citations. One of the citations I attempted to explore did give me an error. The link was to a webpage called ghostarchive.org that was attached to citation number 4.

Unnecessary Information

Under the paragraph broadcast the editor had made comments speculating and explaining theories fans have regarding the distance the ball traveled. While this information is not harmful or poorly written, I find it unnecessary. The editor then states what baseball researchers believe, which is 425 ft. That should have been the only statement made about the distance, if not at least given a different header from broadcast.

Conclusion

Without a doubt the article was very well edited and maintained throughout these many years. Most of the citations are accurate and working, although it is not possible to know if they are all unbiased. Maybe giving the section of writing discussing the distance the ball traveled its own sub-heading, would resolve the issue that i mentioned earlier. Other than that I believe the article provides all information needed about the event.