Talk:Rich Hand

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rich Hand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

  • Here and in the following section, what is the supplementary phase of the draft?
    • Linked. 00:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • "he posted a 3.83 earned run average" — across how many appearances?
    • 35, added. 00:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Might be worth adding a sentence on his post-playing activities.
  • Being a right-handed pitcher should be mentioned in the body of the article, too.

Early life and college

  • it "insulted my intelligence". — How so?
  • What year was he during the 1968 draft?
  • What years was he in university?
    • Regarding both of those previous questions, the source is a little unclear. It seems that he probably started college after the 1966 season, but I'm not sure we can quite claim that from what is said. I think wording it as is best reflects the sources. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First professional season (1969)

  • How would you feel about restructuring this to have the five season sections all be subsections of a "Career" section?
  • The year should be mentioned in the text, not just the section heading.

1970

  • "Dark feared that he may have overused Hand during his rookie season." — How do we know this?
    • We know this because of the references at the end of the paragraph. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a flippant answer. First of all, how do we know what Dark feared? We can know what he said, but not what what was actually going on in his head. Second, what do those references at the end of the paragraph say? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read the paragraph to figure out what those references said. "Dark feared..." is an appropriate topic sentence for the paragraph. His account in the biography shows that he thought he left Hand in the game too long, and that doing so had a permanent impact on his career. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. But Dark feared it did. And your statement that we can't know what was actually going on inside his head - well then, how can it ever be said that someone "feared" something? We look for evidence indicating that they did. And Dark's statements are evidence that he "feared" he overused Hand. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't asking how you interpreted the references, I was asking what the references say. In any event, I've requested the book from my library, so I'll find out soon enough. As to what someone fears, what you can say (among other things) is that he wrote that he feared, or that he said what he feared. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sanfranciscogiants17, here's what the reference says: "In Cleveland in 1970 I was pitching Rich Hand against the Angels. Hand hadn't completed a game that year, and after a certain number of pitches I told him to take a seat. He had a 6-2 lead, it was hot, I figured he'd done enough. He said he wanted to finish. I said no. About ten days later Hand was beating the Angels again, 6-0, but by the eighth inning he had thrown a lot of pitches. I went out to relieve him. He said, 'No Skip. Please let me finish.' I said, 'All right, but if you get into any trouble you're coming out.' He struggled through the eighth. I said, 'That's it, Rich.' He resisted again. 'Aw, c'mon, Skip. Let me finish. I gotta finish a game.' And like an idiot I said okay. He would up throwing about 150 pitches that day. The next time he was due to pitch he came to me complainting of a sore elbow. 'I don't know what happened, Skip,' he said. Well, I knew what happened. And it was my fault. Rich Hand wasn't the same after that. His arm never came back." What about that passage supports the idea that "Dark feared that he may have overused Hand" (my emphases)? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Usernameunique Everything about the passage supports that idea, but most specifically - "And like an idiot" - "His arm never came back." We can conclude from this statement that Dark thought he had overused Hand. And, contrary to what you say, we can know what he was thinking - HE WROTE THE BOOK, for goodness' sake - these are his thoughts on paper! However, we can't just say "Dark overused Hand" because of editorial sense - there are any number of reasons why Hand might not have turned into a good pitcher. Dark simply remembers a time where he feels like an idiot for doing something that he perceives had a negative effect on Hand's career. I don't understand why this wording is problematic, and I will not be changing it. If that's going to be a problem for you, I might as well go ahead and renominate the article, because I'm convinced that "Dark feared" is the best way to report this info. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He threw his first shutout" — How many pitches?
  • "6–13 record, a 3.83 ERA" — Was he just getting no run support?
    • Sources don't say that, so we shouldn't either. 3.83 is decent, but it isn't the lowest ERA of all time. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • 92 runs in 25 starts, if my math is correct, no 3.68 runs per game—not awful, but not great. I'll leave that up to you if you want to add it. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Rangers (1972–1973)

  • "four straight outings" — Starts? Relief appearances?
  • "before losing six of his last seven starts and posting a 6.42 ERA" — Any word on what happened?

California Angels (1973)

  • Any word on the types of injuries?
  • Here and elsewhere, see MOS:NUMNOTES, particularly: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32."
    • I believe I corrected this; if any reviewer notices differently, let me know. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I scanned through with this lens on. Arguably there are some inning counts that could be fixed in §First professional season (1969). This is an optional MOS item as far as the GA criteria are concerned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final professional season (1974)

  • When was he demoted?
  • "Hand considered retiring" — How do we know this?
    • Source says "considered not reporting"...which you are correct, is not technically considered retiring - he may have hoped to catch on with a different ballclub. Changed wording to be more synonymous with what was said. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "he was loaned" mean?
    • Actually, looking at Baseball-Reference.com, it says he was "optioned." That, however, usually means that the parent club sent him down, and Pawtucket was affiliated with Boston, not California. I tried to find out how Hand might have gone from California's system to Boston's but was unable. The SABR source does make clear that the time with Pawtucket was later in the year, so I changed the wording. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description, career statistics and pitching style

  • Were those saves in closer situations, or just pitching the final three innings?
    • Considering he only recorded three saves in four years, I think that would be beyond the scope of this article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When/in what context did he say the quoted bit?
  • When did he start throwing the changeup?

Personal life

  • Classes from what college?
  • Any word on how/where he met his wives?
  • Mike Paul, his Indians teammate?
    • Yes, and it's already linked, so I'm not relinking it here. Given that Paul's usually a first name, though, it seemed appropriate to spell out the whole name, rather than risk readers thinking this was some guy with the first name of Paul. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can Whitney Hand take red link?
    • I don't think she's notable. Even if she is, I prefer not to include red links in articles. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any word on his other three daughters?

References

  • Better ensure #1 still supports the information its used for, and update the retrieval date.
  • #2 — missing date.
    • Not missing - these articles don't have dates. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This biography was published in '1972 Texas Rangers: The Team that Couldn’t Hit' (SABR, 2019), edited by Steve West and Bill Nowlin."
        • Oh, good catch. Usually, these biographies don't have any dates indicated. Added the year. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publishers/websites can take links.
  • #3, #13, #15, #16, #18, #19, #22, #25 — Links? Where did you find these? Can be formatted with {{cite magazine}}.
    • I don't have links available for these articles. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Where did you find these"? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I drew them from the SABR article. If you prefer, I can cite the SABR article itself instead. I just chose to cite these to show the various sources the information was coming from. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, I would cite both the SABR article and the underlying sources. Generally speaking, though, it's not a particularly good practice to cite sources which you haven't read. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • #8 — can either author take a link?
  • #17, #24 — These should be formatted with {{cite news}}. That will also solve the fact that the entire cites are currently links, not just the titles of the articles.
  • #27 — Link? Where did you find this? Can be formatted with {{cite news}}.
    • No link available. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the first hit on Google when I search for the title. Also, the date's incorrect. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting. I want to say that when I worked on this article, the link (I guess an old one) didn't work, and I couldn't find it on the site. Maybe I was just looking on the wrong site. Anyway, thanks for discovering it - I added it in. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanfranciscogiants17, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over[edit]

Regrettably, Usernameunique has been inactive for a while and although they have replied to queries, they have twice failed to resume reviewing on the schedule they themselves proposed. The nomination status has been changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to take on this review. @Sanfranciscogiants17: I'll have some comments for you in the next 24 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion (FFF)[edit]

Overall progress[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See notes below
    All fixed during review.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    One lead-related note/question below
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Some citations need confirmation or WP:SAYWHERE fixes. WP:V spot checks all looked good.
    All fixed during review.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    High match percentage with the SABR source: quotes and statistics. Googled some phrases and not sign of copyvio.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I've seen nothing—in the cited sources I spot-checked or the not-yet-cited sources I've found—that suggests there are major parts of the biography unaddressed.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    See notes below
    All fixed during review.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Optional request for alt text noted below. Images are license-tagged and they appear to check out
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Put on hold for a week to give time for fixes
    All fixed during review.

Old review items[edit]

First, some items from Usernameunique's review:

  • I see where the reviewer was coming from with "Dark feared", but I think it's a reasonable summary.
  • I think the Sporting News sources might be accessible to you. Head to SABR site, head to the The Sporting News entry, and click on "Free for SABR members via Paper of Record." Seems that's somehow enough to get Paper of Record access, with the paper showing under Missouri. All the cited articles are available via the search. Let me know if this doesn't work for you and I can email PDFs. I tried briefly but was unable to get a link that could work in a citation.
    • Please cite the source you actually read. See WP:SAYWHEN for the how and why. If there are any source besides Sporting News you only saw cited in SABR, they need to be redone. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried accessing them but was unable to (probably because I'm not an SABR member). If you're willing to send them as PDFs, though, I'd be happy to check the article against them and cite them or just cite to the SABR page. I just checked and made sure the email setting on my profile is set up, so you should be able to email me. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sanfranciscogiants17: email sent. I need a reply from you before I can attach files. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a GA criteria item: please do link Alvin Dark in the citation. See MOS:REFLINK for citations as an exception to the duplicate link guideline.
  • Can you please respond to each line of Usernameunique's review? Even if it's to say "I don't know" or "I disagree".

Stopping here for now. I won't put this on hold until I have a full review out, and at that point you'll have a week to fix any issues. If you'd like to get started on the above items now, go for it, but I expect you'll have plenty of time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review notes[edit]

  • Lead
    • Is Dark's opinion due for the lead? I know it's mentioned in Dark's book, but is given coverage anywhere else? Though Dark has a "he never recovered" attitude toward the overuse that season, Hand's best pitching days were (arguably) ahead of him.
  • First professional season
    • I spot checked this section for WP:V, everything checks out.
  • Cleveland Indians
    • triumph seems a bit much, how about victory?
    • It would be helpful to know about how long Hand was on the DL, either by saying so directly or giving a date for the start of the season.
    • Presumably, the Indians' Triple-A team switched from the Beavers to the Aeros between 1969 and 1971. The word "now" is not doing a good job of making that clear.
      • Perhaps not, but the source itself does not make that clear either. The point is that in 1971, the Indians' Triple-A team was currently Wichita. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sanfranciscogiants17: it's ok if the timing isn't clear, but "now" could easily imply something like "He played for the Indians' Triple-A team, which we're not sharing the name of, but in 2022 their AAA team is now the Aeros." I think there's some rewording you could do to avoid the confusing "now". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas Rangers
    • Might be worth mentioning at the end of this section that Hand did choose to live long-term in Texas. I think it's worth the repetition.
  • Final professional season
    • It would partially alleviate the Pawtucket mystery to note that he was there "on option" per SABR. I'm digging through the Sporting News results to see if I can find anything else.
      • The only thing is, I'm not sure that that is accurate. "On option" would mean that he had a major league contract with the Red Sox, who would then have optioned him to Pawtucket. I'm not finding a record of any transaction that made Hand property of the Red Sox. I think it's better left a mystery than stated more definitively than we have cause to. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This newspaper clipping says Hand was "on loan" to Pawtucket before his purchase by the Cardinals. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life

That's it! Sanfranciscogiants17, I've placed this review on hold for a week. Please use that time to make the needed changes. I could use a confirmation that you reviewed the PDFs to be sure they verify the article content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All needed fixes are marked as done or are pending some followup. Sometime in the next 48 hours I'll check through them and give the article a final read-through. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Final read through done. Overall GA criteria list above is updated. Sanfranciscogiants17, congrats on another GA! Future improvements could address more of the optional items below, clarify the Pawtucket mystery, and mine more sources available through Paper of Record and Newspapers.com archives. If you have an idea of what you're looking for, I'm always happy to dig a bit an provide PDFs or clippings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-GA notes (optional)[edit]

  • Overall
    • "Broad"ness is looking good, but here are some sources you should at least consider:
      • Fort Worth Star-Telegram (2015): Apparently Hand had a Rangers record for starts with 3 ERA or under, not tied until 2015.
      • Season in Hell (1996): Mike Shropshire quotes Whitey Herzog as calling (while naked in his office) Hand and Mike Paul "a couple of shitballers" (p. 5) and Shropshire says of the two that they "knew how to pitch but had arms like worn-out rubber bands".
      • Play-by-Play (2007): Bill Mercer notes Hand's 10 victories was the highest total of the Rangers' pitching lineup in 1972 (p. 201). He has an interesting anecdote about a Hand vs. Ted Williams argument at the mound over continuing to pitch through the bottom of the ninth and puts Hand's ERA in 1972 as the best of the team's starting pitchers (p. 206). A not so interesting anecdote about Mercer giving Hand advice is on 206–207.
        • Added the part about Hand leading the team in wins - the other info looks interesting too, but I don't have the book, so not putting that in for now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review for consistency in use of Oxford/serial comma
    • Please review quoted material for MOS:LQ punctuation fixes. Comma should follow the quotation marks in sentences like: "This is a very minor matter", said Firefangledfeathers.
      • Just a note on why these commas aren't compliant - I was taught in school that commas always went within the punctuation marks, not without. Obviously, it's a style thing - what's right in MLA isn't necessarily going to fly in Chicago, or vice-versa. If I ever try to take this to FA status, then I will work on making the change. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please add alt text to images
    • Check all the "however"s to be sure they're needed.
  • Lead
  • Early life and college
    • "in the first of those years" → "in 1967"
  • First professional season
  • You introduce PCL as an acronym and never use it again.
  • Cleveland Indians

More to come. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments posted. Did you get the emailed sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rich_Hand&oldid=1207533994"