# Talk:Rick Ferrell

Shouldn't there be a section on his HoF status? I have nothing against the guy but his brother, a Pitcher, was a better hitter than he was. Of course, Wes was probably the best-hitting Pitcher who stayed a Pitcher. But Rick's offense, given the context of a very high-scoring era, was just not that impressive. I may do a section like that, although I'm not wild about being negative about someone who was apparently a good guy and certainly a good defensive Catcher. Still, Bill Freehan would be a better HoF choice. 71.192.59.174 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Will in New Haven71.192.59.174 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The article articulates that he was one the top hitting catchers of his era, when combined with his better than average defensive skills and longevity at a difficult fielding position, it doesn't seem very controversial.Neonblak talk -  19:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who contributed to elevating this to a GA status. If anyone wants to have a look at Birdie Tebbetts, that is another article quite close to being a GA.Orsoni (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rick Ferrell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 06:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I've decided to review this article. I will hopefully start the review shortly, but before I do this is how I normally go about it: I'll usually read through the article starting immediately after the lead, and make comments as I go. These comments do not necessarily relate directly to the Good article criteria, but should in most cases. I believe that if I'm going to review an article, I may as well give any feedback I can, regardless of whether it relates to meeting the GA criteria. I read the lead last. Once I've finished reading through, I normally check the references and images (although sometimes I check these as I go). It's here I'll normally spotcheck the references (to see that they verify the relevant statement) and also checking to close-paraphrasing. If I find any problems with close paraphrasing I'll fail the article immediately – I'm not comfortable passing an article if there is a chance it contains a copyright violation. I see this as a collaborative process, so if you have any questions feel free to ask, and I'll make sure that I check back regularly. – Shudde talk 06:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Images
File:Rick Ferrell Browns.jpg -- there is not date for when the photo was taken, only when it was uploaded. Also is there any evidence the copyright was not renewed?
- fixed date and made it clear what the photo is.
Still not sure about this image. I'm going to ask for a second opinion. Just not my area, and better to be safe than sorry. -- Shudde talk 04:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
File:RickFerrellGoudeycard.jpg -- no problems here, dated, and evidence that copyright was not renewed.
File:Rick Ferrell 1936.jpeg -- no problems here, dated, and evidence that copyright was not renewed.
References
There are 32 references so I'll spotcheck 8 at random.

[2] -- I'll only check the first five. a -- fin; b -- can't find it, do I have to dig around?; c -- fine; d -- supports second part of sentence but not the first; e -- again do I need to dig around for this?
- b:under name and death information, d:fixed, used ref 1, where information was drawn from, e:the bold numbers signify stats that led the league, but I replaced with another RS that states it clearer near the bottom of the page.
[5] -- no problems
[6] -- a -- Does not support the whole statement, that he was signed by the Tigers in 1926; b -- supports this
- fixed
[14] -- looks like OR to me, "impressive"? Backs up some of the statement, but we need a secondary source for any praise of his performance.
- removed the word "impressive" and inserted Wes Ferrell's stat reference to clean it up.
[20] -- no problems
[22] -- struggling to interpret the stats but pretty sure ref supports statement
[27] -- Supports some of the statement.
[30] -- supports that he was elected in 1984.
I haven't found any close-paraphrasing problems to worry about. You may want to check some of your sources, that they fully verify the statements they reference. [2], [6] and [14] for example. 3/8 is probably a little worrying. I may come back and check more references in the next day or two.

Overall
The article is very well written. It's quite dense with jargon and statistics, which is both common and hard to avoid in sports articles. It's written quite well however and I did enjoy reading it. If I did have a recommendation it would be for a little more discussion or commentary on his performances from secondary sources, rather than relying so heavily on statistics. I think this would enhance the article. I will place the article on hold. There are a few concerns regarding sources, one image that needs attention, and some minor prose points to look at. If you have any questions feel free to ping me on my talkpage. -- Shudde talk 07:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review, it will take me some time to address these, but should be completed within a few days.Neonblak talk -  12:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No problems. I'm unlikely to be able to check through any changes until last week so no rush. -- Shudde talk 22:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully I have fixed and/or addressed all your concerns, I will be available if any more pop up. I appreciate the time you have spent reviewing this article.Neonblak talk -  08:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Great. I've gone through and have a couple more comments above. I'm also going to ask for a second opinion on the copyright status of File:Rick Ferrell Browns.jpg, which hopefully won't take long. I'm happy enough with the references, but it may be worth your time to check through a few more that I didn't spot-check. Nearly there. -- Shudde talk 04:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Shudde: I added (I think), a thorough explanation of the contract dispute, and it should be clear now what happened. Also, changed word in the Cochrane/Dickey sentence, and added their Hall of Fame pages as references to back-up the other biography. Other than the picture issue, I think I got it all, but if not, let me know.Neonblak talk -  03:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Neonblak: Thanks for that. Still haven't had a response at WT:GAN so I'll try and add something like a note to get a response. A little frustrating sorry, but better safe than sorry! -- Shudde talk 02:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Second opinion sought
Would greatly appreciate a second opinion regarding the copyright status of File:Rick Ferrell Browns.jpg -- see above for more details. It's the only thing we're waiting on before passing the article. -- Shudde talk 02:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked the user that uploaded the photo, and his response is here. It may help.Neonblak talk -  13:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@Neonblak: Cool. If you could add something along the lines of Wizardman's rationale to the image's description page then that would be great. I'll AGF that this'll be done and pass the article. Good work on the article, it's a nice piece of writing and even for an ignorant-of-baseball reader such as me I found it quite engaging. Congrats again. -- Shudde talk 00:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed review, you may or may not know baseball, but you certainly know WikiPedia :) I will form a short rationale for the picture now, so that it is up-to-speed.Neonblak talk -  03:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)