Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Phelps/archive2

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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:50, 2 July 2010 [1].

Michael Phelps

Michael Phelps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Philipmj24 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the high standards of a featured article. This article is highly sourced with good sources and the article is very detailed with his swimming career. Michael Phelps made history in 2008 by winning eight gold medals in one Olympics and is considered the best swimmer in history. I have nominated this article before and have made improvements since then. For example, I've fix all of the references and they are all consistent. Most of the concerns were the references, but I don't think anyone should have a problem with it now. Philipmj24 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've addressed the 200 AD dates and the dab links. Can you tell me where those dead external links are? I don't know what you are talking about.Philipmj24 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, I have removed the dead external links.Philipmj24 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 06:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAN or WP:PR would be a good idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: Various issues arise:-

  • There is considerable over-referencing, for example nine consecutive citations to p. 111 of Phelps's book in the "2002 Pan Pacific Championships" paragraph. A single citation at the paragraph's end would cover all of these. Check for similar cases of over-citation.
  • I note that a very high proportion of the book citations are to Phelps's own books. This looks like overuse of primary sources; it may look less so when the over-referencing mentioned above has been sorted out but it may still be a matter of concern.
  • What is the nature of ref 4? Is it a book, article or what? Publisher details are necessary.
  • It's The New York Times, not "New York Times". This title should be italicised, as should all print media sources, e.g. Sports Illustrated. Non-print sources should not be italicised.
  • The results citations need publisher information; in each case the publisher appears to be Omega. Why the sudden capitalisation in refs 59 to 67, and why the change of format from that used in the 2003 world championships citations? (See also ref. 115 for unexplained use of caps)
  • Why is the ususal short citation form not used in refs 124, 125, 137? Could be "Schaller, p. 228" etc.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, someone knowledgeable told me somewhere (can't remember where or when) that it's OK to use New York Times. Can't remember where, when or why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wowee. Does that apply also to Washington Post etc? A few less nits to pick. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Searched my archived, found this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I think I've addressed all of your concerns. If I missed anything (I'm sure I missed something), plese tell me. As for your opinion on the books being overuse as primary sources, I don't think that is an issue. Most of the references I used from his books were results from swimming events I couldn't find on the internet.Philipmj24 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of the Phelps citations, particularly the later ones, do not refer to race results. For example, all the citations in the "Allegations of drug use" section, and nearly all in the Ian Thorpe secttion, are to Phelps's books. These are the bothersome ones. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Race results can be gotten independently in an easy manner at swiminfo.com of Swimming World Magazine (they list the news archive in chron order, so if you know when the meet was you just jump to that month in the archive) and the BBC website covers every Olympic and WC race result as well. And the BBC articles never get deleted or moved, even ten years after, which is great, as the links won't go dead. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I've added additional references and fixed the caps. If there is any other problems, tell me. Thank you.Philipmj24 (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
  • The statement that Thorpe's youngest WR swim was the 200 free in 1999 Pan Pacs is false as he did a 3.41.83?? in the 400 free on the first night, and was therefore younger than the 200 the day after. If this is a mistake in Phelps' book it shows the value of checking multiple sources to weed out honest errors in sources
  • There is inconsistency in the time formats, eg 3:41.23 and 3 m 34.23 s etc.
  • Also the article has many places where distances and units are given without a nbsp eg 400 m
  • The article has gone into Phelps' habit of using naysayers to fire himself up, per the Thorpe stuff. Fair enough, but there are other notable examples where the sceptic made more negative/abrasive comments and where Phelps responded angrily
    • 2003 Don Talbot said that Phelps hadn't achieved anything yet and then Phelps said he was motivated to make Talbot "eat his words"
    • 2007 Cseh angered him
    • Cavic 2008 and 2009 in flamboyant manner, prompting wild celebrations/enraged screaming by Phelps
    • The comments by Thorpe were actually presented in a very mild and gentlemanly way and didn't provoke angry celebrations like the others
  • If I was to add every negative comment about Phelps, I would have to create a new article. This article to just to long as it is. Why only Thorpe? Because Thorpe and Phelps were seen as the biggest rivals when Thorpe was still a swimmer. So any comment Thorpe makes about Phelps, I think, warrants some kind of mention. The common person that doesn't follow swimming closely would probably be more interested in what Thorpe says. But overall I think the article is just to long to have what everyone has to say about him.Philipmj24 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comment that Phelps' biggest direct rival was Thorpe. They only raced in the 200 free in 2004 and the 200 IM in 2003, which was a bit of a joke event for Thorpe, nor was the 200 free a focus for Phelps at the time. He has been in more head to heads with Cseh, Cavic and Lochte. Nevertheless, swimming is a very gentlemanly sport and there is rarely any trash talk; Thorpe's comment wasn't a trash talk, he was asked for a prediction and gave his opinion in a sedate and polite manner, whereas Cavic made flamboyant comments and Talbot very very sceptical although not brash, and those two did draw more angry comments by Phelps, whereas the Thorpe one just a chuckle and "I love disproving people who say things are impossible" type comment without obvious rancour. Obviously we disagree with length, given that Phelps is a giant of his field akin to Einstein, Newton, Julius Caesar, etc, the article is really on the leaner side, and also given your GA noms of Ian Crocker and Jessica Hardy with 1-line leads. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, contractions eg "didn't" aren't used except in quotes, so a few have to be removed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the comments Cavic made in detail. I've also mentioned what Talbot said (I really don't think we need to go into detail with that). I really disagree with your comment that this artice is "on the leaner side". That obviously isn't true. And I really hope just because I nominated Ian Crocker and Jessica Hardy for GA, that doesn't affect the outcome of this nomination. Also, I went through the article to weed out contractions. Please tell me if I missed any. Thank you.Philipmj24 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crocker and Hardy won't affect this FAC. Failed FACs/GACs don't have any impact and I'm not advocating for it to be held against you. I'm just pointing out that we have a different interpretation of comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, I disagree that the article being lean "obviously isn't true". To be honest, the article gets boring with the abundance of results. Aaroncrick TALK 02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Reference quality leaves something to be desired, and the content is not yet there in my mind. I have all the respect in the world for anyone who is brave enough to try making an article on a high-profile active athlete featured, since this is a particularly difficult task, but I don't think this is FA material at the moment.

  • First of all, I see that three of the five references in Allegations of drug use are to Phelps' autobiography. I would expect to see much stronger sourcing for a section with such obvious BLP ramifications. For what it's worth, I don't remember such claims being widely distributed in the press at the time; the bong pipe incident was discussed much more in the media than any PED allegations (not that I think that should be expanded, because I don't).
  • In a related comment, I have questions in my mind as to whether this meets criterion 1c (well-researched). The vast majority of the references are to either his autobiography or Omega Timing, and there are fewer references from newspapers/magazines than I would expect for a modern athlete. It's not like it is hard to find information on Phelps, considering that so much has written on him by a variety of publications. Also, I'm surprised the Schaller book isn't used more, since that seems like it would be preferable to most of what is being used.
  • One example of my (and others') concerns about source usage comes in the second sentence, which has five citations. Among them is one to Phelps' book, which appears to be citing his greatness. Do you see how this could pose a problem?
  • Have you read the book? He is quoting other people, it is not his opinion. It says, "Castagnetti, the Italian coach who had stirred so much talk about the LZR, said I was 'undisputedly the greatest swimmer of all time.'" Now, if you actually read the book, you would of seen that posed no problem at all. Philipmj24 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now for a few prose concerns. In the fourth paragraph of the lead, his World and American Swimmer of the Year Awards are fully listed out. It becomes heavy reading after a while, due to how many years are there. I believe some form of "have earned him x World Swimmer of the Year Awards and y American Swimmer of the Year Awards" would be an improvement.
  • The Olympics don't need two links in the lead; anyone interested would have already clicked on the first link.
  • Early life: "and becoming the youngest male to make an U.S. Olympic swim team in 68 years." "an" → "a".
  • In reading this, I find myself agreeing with Aaroncrick in that the article as a whole seems too result-heavy. Nice statistics on all of Phelps' major event performances are present, but any sort of a narrative on his career is sorely lacking. Personally I remember that before the 2008 Olympics there was much speculation as to how many gold medals Phelps would win; in fact, these expectations existed to a certain point in 2004. That is but one example of the kind of information that would lift this article to another level. If I go off and look at something like this, the difference is striking. Even though that is shorter than this article, I find it a more involving read.
  • He is a swimmer. The article should be about his swimming career. Which the article goes in detail about. Of course the article is going to be "result-heavy" because he has won fifty four international medals (9 times the amount of Evans). Peter Evans has won a total of 6 international medals. These are two totally different articles. Philipmj24 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing his 2004 and 2008 Olympic experiences is like comparing apples and peaches. Two totally different things. Just because he so happen to win the same amount of medals doesn't mean it has to be as long as it. There was a lot more going on in Beijing because of the abundance of world records, close swims, and controversy. Like Milorad Cavic and Alain Bernard.Philipmj24 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Michael_Phelps/archive2