You Are Here > Baseball-Reference.com > Bullpen > BR Bullpen:Featured Article Candidates/Lou Brissie - BR Bullpen

BR Bullpen:Featured Article Candidates/Lou Brissie

From BR Bullpen

Jump to: navigation, search

Lou Brissie

Support with some changes. My main concern is the lack of citation for much of the information compared to past featured articles like Dave Nilsson or Tuffy Rhodes. I added in markers where we need citation. It can't hurt to expand his MLB career a bit more. And finally, it needs an introductory paragraph (~100-150 words). - --Mischa 11:36, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Support with citations. I agree that with citations, its a good featured article. --Jeff 12:37, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Support with misgivings. I don't like all the "citation needed" tags. This ain't Wikipedia, where every little sub-statement has to be cross-referenced. It's more useful here to have a good bibliography attached to the article, but in the atricle we only have one book source listed. I also think the major league portion of the article is really short for a featured article. There's a nice bit on the Al-Star Game, but almost nothing about his regular-season record. There is also a need to add some internal links in the text. That said, the current featured article has been there too long and it's time for a change. --Philippe 13:55, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I think for a short article, there's no need for citations, or one relying on just a source or two, but for a featured article, I think we generally need a higher standard. - --Mischa 14:18, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I'll oppose the choice because I don't think it's a good example of what Bullpen can do. There are better sources - SABR has a lengthy biography of him, and Ira Berkow did a book on him that came out in February 2009. What do we add? The "citation needed" tags are probably unnecessary because the facts I looked at so far largely come from the SABR biography. If we do use it, I suggest we clean it up and try to differentiate it more from what's already out there. - Randy 15:06, 4 December 2009 (EST)

I will support this when the "citation needed" marks are removed or are no longer necessary. As for now, I'm going to oppose it. Alex 18:03, 7 December 2009 (EST)

Support with misgivings, as Philippe suggests above. Looking over the article, it is kind of short, but we need a new featured article. I don't think we need to have citations for every fact and figure in the article, the tags aren't needed. So for now, I'll vote yes. Oaktree_b 23:03, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Personal tools