Talk:Carlos Ruiz (baseball)

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

New Picture of Ruiz on second base, opening day 2011 - is it necessary?

Is this picture really necessary? There are a lot of pictures in that section already, and in this one the subject (Ruiz) is very far away, appears small with respect to the framing and it's not even a very clear photograph. Perhaps there is over-saturation with pictures in the article as a whole, and this one is just more clutter than offering anything new to the reader. JesseRafe (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the guise of editing that section, I felt I had to delete the photo, just not enough text in the area to justify three photographs, and this one was the most expendable. JesseRafe (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Note, my edit summary should have read "unconstructive" rather than simply "u". Sorry about that--Go Phightins! 00:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

-Go Phightins! 21:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Carlos Ruiz (baseball)/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review this article and will have comments shortly. Montanabw(talk) 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate
Attribute
 Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. There is a bit of "flowery sportswriter prose" here and there, words like "toiled", "heroic", etc. Fun, but a bit unencyclopedic. Maybe rephrase to be more specific as to the actions themselves and let the reader draw their own conclusions.  ;-) More comments after the chart Much better!
1b. it complies with the
list incorporation
. 		I'd like to see the lead expanded a little. It's not an absolute rule that a lead has to be three paragraphs, but two short ones doesn't quite summarize what's there. (I hate doing leads, FWIW, maybe tweak it last after addressing any content issues) Montanabw(talk) 02:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
. 		Well- sourced, no dead links. Be aware that Boston Globe DOES eventually archive many of their articles behind a paywall and so you might need to tell the Wayback machine to crawl the site URL for your citations to the Globe as a precaution; don't know if the bot will do it or if the Globe has some sort of bot-stopper, but worth a shot so you don't lose verifiability. (I learned this the hard way...)
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). 1) Do 2013 and 2014 Philadelphia Phillies Media Guide have a URL link to electronic copy? (not required, just wondering) 2) Stark, Jayson (2009). Worth the Wait: Tales of the 2008 Phillies is cited twice, need page numbers for book citations. For all of the above, I recommend creating a "sources" or "bibliography" section where you can list the publication once, and then use <ref>Jones, p, X</ref> or {{sfn|Jones|page=X}} in the citations for the purpose of pinpoint citation to pages. I don't care if you use sfn for this, but I do like to see page cites.
    • Moved Worth the Wait to a sources section. The media guides, unfortunately, are not online - I have to buy them at the beginning of each season :/ Also, since Ruiz is only featured in about there pages, I just left them inline citing all three pages ... I don't have the book in front of me to find which is on which page right now (if you think it's worth it, I can go get the book, your call). Go Phightins! 23:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good. AGF on print sources, but your work is consistent. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. Solid work there!
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Wonder if the Early Years section can be expanded upon - it jumps from age 7 to college, is there anything in-between?
    • As with many Hispanic players, finding any information on childhood/upbringing is often difficult. And almost all information one finds is anecdotal, such as the information I provided (although obviously losing a father is not an "anecdote", it is the sole event in his childhood about which I've seen coverage. Sorry :-( Go Phightins! 23:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's all there is, that's all there is. I gleaned a little more from the source you have and put some ideas into hidden text in the article. Your call if you want to add. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The quotation in the 2011 section is rather long, I'd perhaps check MOS to see if the length is over the limit; it is touching, but it sort of appears a bit out of context. The "heart and soul of the team" comment is actually something you may want to expand upon, either in the 2011 section if that's the only year it was mentioned, or in a different section if it's part of Ruiz's overall character.
    • The article was published in 2011, hence the reason it's in the section. Would it be better in the "player profile" section? I know it's long, but I didn't want to cut it, as it is touching, as you mentioned. Go Phightins! 23:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it should stay, and I think the player profile section is just the spot; in the 2011 section, it can be missed. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
audio
:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Copyrights all good, 1) not sure you need the spring training image, if it is important because it's a little different from the others, then may want to consider cropping and lightening it a bit (it was done once, badly, in the past, I wouldn't upload a cropped version over the existing image, I'd upload the cropped image as a second upload) Don't have to, just a thought. 2) the image File:Carlos Ruiz on June 1, 2011 (1).jpg is probably unnecessary, it is duplicative of the lead image
    • Cropped the ST image ... I did re-upload the cropped version because of not wanting to deal with the attribution mess, as it originated from Flickr. I'm lazy (sometimes) . Go Phightins! 23:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are
relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
. 		You have some sandwiched text between File:Joe Blanton and Carlos Ruiz confer.JPG and File:Carlos Ruiz on June 1, 2011 (1).jpg. If you don't toss the second image altogether (which might be worth considering, see above) then move it down a ways in the article. Also may want to do a little copyediting of captions, particularly the one stating "Ruiz has developed his catching skills over the years; this is him from a game in June 2011" (ouch!) (I'd suggest, "Ruiz, 2011" and call it good.)
7. Overall assessment.
Preliminary scan, more to come, probably tomorrow. If the boxes above are too small for your reply, no problem putting comments below here. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The basic stuff above looks mostly fixed. I'm going to do a run-through of all text now. It is easier for me to make minor tweaks as I go and use hidden text comments within the article for the bigger stuff instead of coming over here and saying "you need a comma at point X." If there's something major, like reorganization or something, I'll say so here. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With my run-through, I put in a lot of suggestions, anything you don't tweak but want to discuss, just chat here. A couple of thoughts:

  • If the team was a little reluctant to take on Ruiz at first, why was this? If the statistics explain why, you may need to explain the statistics to a non-baseball person such as myself, I wouldn't know if the numbers are good or bad just by looking. Seems a gap here. Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few of the longer parenthetical phrases might be better done as end footnotes (efn). Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the quotes are over-long and are being used to carry the narrative, which doesn't always work. While I'm symmpathetic to not close prarphrasing and using cited quotes is better, I'd prefer to see an encyclopedic description with a short quote, particularly when the quotes don't really convey the story ideally anyway. An example is "Ruiz—himself only a .219 hitter during the regular season—found one piece of no-man's-land inside the crowded infield. He bounced a 45-foot dribbler toward third; Evan Longoria hopelessly flung the ball wildly to the plate. The latest start in World Series history (10:06 p.m. first pitch) ended with the first walk-off infield hit in World Series history." WHy was this significant? Was it the game-winning hit? (I don't know my baseball lingo, what is a "walk-off infield hit"?) And why do we need to know it was a late start? Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I killed quite a few comma splices (comma between subject and verb, no extra charge! Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that my lack of baseball knowledge isn't causing issues, I tried to flag things where I was unfamiliar with the lingo or the significance of a statement. Though baseball is a worldwide sport, it's not one I follow, so a few things needed some explanation. Don't feel obligated to give in to my demands on all of the things I pinged, but figure where I noted something, at least peek at the way it's phrased because I tripped over something there... Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organizational thought - I don't know if all the baseball articles follow the same layout, but that Player Profile section would be cool to put earlier in the article, unless there is a wikiproject consensus to keep it as it. When I read the article, I scratched my head about a lot of things that were finally answered in the Player Profile. You'd need to do a little reorganizing to make this happen, and I won't hold up the GA for such a move, but it might help. Montanabw(talk) 03:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I've never seen one anywhere but the end, but seeing as how I am one of the few who write biographies on current players, I doubt most people care. I'll start a discussion on the project talk page. Go Phightins! 21:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I responded to most of your hidden comments by either fixing the issue, or continuing the dialogue within the context of the hidden comment ... probably would have been easier to discuss here, but oh well. Go Phightins! 21:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Faster there, I agree. Harder to follow in an edit history or with multiple editors, but when just two people, I find it a quick and efficient way to dialogue. Montanabw(talk) 23:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, what I meant by "efn" was for the couple of long (asides tucked into parentheses), using end footnotes is possibly a more elegant way to handle them. I used them at Oxbow (horse) (among other articles) for a couple of things where I needed to go off on a tangent but didn't want to clutter the text. See "Notes" in that article and then see where I inserted {{efn|the stuff that was off on a tangent}} in the article text. Up to you if you want to use them, but a good tool in the arsenal. Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that this story, which you have in the article already, contains a bit on how he was scouted in the first place and why he switched from 2nd base to catcher, I think it's relevant to add to the section on his early years if you want to.
  • @Go Phightins!:Overall, your fixes helped a lot, I'd just ask you to address (or not) the final things that still have hidden text and then I should be able to sign off on this as a GA. Montanabw(talk) 05:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carlos Ruiz (baseball). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carlos Ruiz (baseball). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlos_Ruiz_(baseball)&oldid=1204313337"