# Talk:Ryan Garko

Garko was technically not last in fielding percentage.  For guys with over 100 games at first base, he tied with Carlos Pena at .993 for last, but Eric Henske, Nick Swisher, and Matt Stairs, each with over 40 games at first, had a lower percentage.  And while a biography isn't a love letter to a player, there is also no reason to include his fielding percentage unless it was exceptionally good or bad.  .993 in his first year in the majors at that position and only second full year at it overall isn't that bad.  Now if his defense becomes an issue in his career, then I would see a reason for noting it.LightningMan 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He had the lowest fielding percentage of all qualifiers.  See http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=7&season=2007&seasonType=2&split=79&sortOrder=true&sortColumn=fieldingPct.  That is notable.--Epeefleche 18:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Truth in and of itself does not make it notable, you didn't rewrite the sentence to put in the caveat about qualifiers, and you still haven't justified its relevance.  You apparently have a thing for citing the worst fielding percentages among qualifiers, but unless there is something notable about the "badness" of the fielding percentage, it's a minor stat of no relevance.  If you notice, player boxes here do not mention fielding statistics at all. LightningMan 12:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Player boxes only mention a few stats.  I believe that there is a max of 5 or so.  The major stats urls all mention fielding percentage.  That is what makes it notable as a stat.  And this fellow is a league leader in low fielding percentage.  That is notable, as he has distinguished himself.  I'm not aware that he has led the league in any other area during any year of his major league career.  Your first points were baseless and arbitrary -- you picked 40 games, not the qualifying stats.  Now, you are trying to concoct/assert other arguments.  You also arbitrarily say that it might be relevant if it persisted over the course of his career, but not just for one year.  That is an arbitrary POV, and against the grain of how baseball stats are looked at -- stats relevant for careers are relevant for league-leader's for one year, as a general matter.  Further, this article is not limited to complimentary statements.  Please do not edit war.  If you have a problem with this, bring it to arbitration.--Epeefleche 15:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
First, he does not have the lowest fielding percentage for first baseman.  He has the lowest fielding percentage for people who played over 100+ games at first.  There were others who played significant numbers of games at first, 40+, who were lower.  Next, if you read what I had typed earlier, you'd know that this is his first full year in the majors, which doesn't allow him a lot of time to have led the majors in anything.  Next, I picked 40 to show that these people played enough first base to be considered a first baseman.  Finally, your only defense of notability is that it occurred.  By this standard, a player who had a fielding percentage of .998 would be noteworthy for having the lowest fielding percentage if everyone else had a .999.  At any rate, I am amending your statement to include the caveat you left out.  If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should be the one to bring this to arbitration. LightningMan 14:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of ending our communication I will leave your addition in.  Though it makes as little sense to me as it would to add it to the batting title leader.--Epeefleche 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ryan Garko/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead
"He has also played for the Cleveland Indians, and the San Francisco Giants in Major League Baseball." Don't really need "also". It can be word easily added to sentences for no reason - I do it a lot myself!!
"Garko is seen as a good hitter with poor base running skills, and poor defensive instincts.[1] He is seen as a spray hitter, in that he hits to all sides of the field." Who says both of these?
"doesn't" - don't use contractions in formal text.
"While he attended Stanford University," better to use "when he attended..."
"Formerly a catcher," You've just said this above.
Is there any reason for so many references in the lead. The lead, (per WP:LEAD) shouldn't introduce new facts that aren't in the many body of the article so there is rarely much reason to reference anything.
College
Most of the sentences follow a format "Garko did this... Garko did that ... Garko did this." The section could do with a brief re-write to make the writing more engaging.
Indians
What is "Short-Season"? And does it need to be capped?
2007 season
"it was said that Garko would have to improve on the defensive end to make the 25-man roster." Who said this? And why would he have to improve his defense?
"Towards the end of spring training, Indians' manager Eric Wedge noted that Garko had in fact made improvements on defense." "in fact" is redundant.
"A comment Garko made during the American League Championship Series sparked controversy after he stated, "The champagne tastes just as good on the road as it does at home."" Why is this controversial?
Others
No dablinks
Ref 5 to "NCAA And CWS, INC., Announce College World Series Legends Team" is dead.
Ref 67 "Oklahoma City 9, Portland 3: Ryan Garko's slam, Kevin Richardson's three-run blast power RedHawks over Beavers" also comes up with a strange error message.
I'd move the personal section to the start since chronologically this is where most of the details belong.
Most of the article is fine, well-referenced and seems to be very thorough. But coming back to the point I made for the "college" section, most other sections follow a similar format. It gives the feeling of "proseline" (see Wikipedia:Proseline) rather than engaging text that has context and follows on well. I'd either suggest giving it a good read through yourself to reword or maybe ask writers with a knowledge of similar articles. It's not a major task, so I'll keep this on hold for the time being. Brad78 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the writer made all the fixes noted above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Further comments
The second point raised about the lead has not been addressed.  Done
"During spring training, Garko wrote a series of journals for MLB.com about his experiences in the major leagues." It doesn't seem to be about his experiences in the major league to me. I was going to re-write it but not sure what to.  Done
"By September, he was the starting everyday first baseman for the Indians after both Ben Broussard was also traded to Seattle." either something missing here or take out both.  Done
Try not use "also" so much.  Done
Shouldn't be too difficult to sort. The text has certainly been improved so far. Brad78 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Brad78 (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ryan Garko/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I am nominating this article for demotion, as it is not currently at the 2013 standard of GAs. The lead is very short for the article size, and it neglects everything after 2006. There are references that are not properly formatted, deadlinks, and the prose needs updated to reflect 2013. The "personal life" section is very, very short, and I can understand that if the player is trivially covered, but someone like Garko should have more than two sentences. There are further violations of proper prose I can go into if anyone is interested in fixing the article. As of now, I it fails WP:WIAGA 1b and 3a, at minimum. Albacore (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy to work on this article. If you think the prose needs to be fixed for it to remain a Good Article, post your suggestions and I will work on them. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for picking this up. My comments:
Reference 16 is dead.
Files look OK in terms of copyright.
Most references use "Major League Baseball. mlb.mlb.com" but some (52 and 59) don't.
Don't mix "2013-08-12" with "Retrieved February 1, 2010". Check for consistency in the citation formats, it looks like you use {{cite web}} for most of the first references but {{citation}} for the rest. Be consistent in publishers for baseball-reference (25 uses Sports Reference LLC, which is proper, and "baseball-reference.com" two later). Ref 64 needs a language parameter. I'm sure there's more, you know what to look for.
Throughout I see years linked with {{mlby}} which is not for use in prose per WP:EGG.
He is not strikeout prone; however, he does not generate a large number of walks. what makes this important enough for the lead? Can you mention some career stats for Garko, like RBI, hits, etc.?
Not sure we need all the stats from a summer league team, just keep the important ones.
He is still fifth all-time in doubles at Stanford, seventh in RBIs, and ninth in batting average and home runs. This should be changed to remove "still", perhaps "as of 2013".
Can you mention a year for the sophomore season so the reader can keep track of what year it was?
You could talk about how Stanford did as a team, how they made a College World Series appearance in 2008, his sophomore season.
Just use the important/notable stats for the AFL.
For the second straight season, Garko played in the Arizona Fall League at the end of the season.[22] This time, Garko played for the Mesa Solar Sox. Combine the two sentences, reads choppily now.
Just a note on the article in general, cut the unimportant stats from Garko's lines, especially from the minor league/AFL stats.
How did he do as a pinch hitter?
For all the AFL stats you give, you can't mention his MLB stats from 2005?!?
There shouldn't be an "Awards" section, that should be worked into the prose in the appropriate sections.
I'm at the "2006 season" section, I'll finish the review when these are responded to. Thanks for the interest. Albacore (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 disabled list after x-rays turned up negative for a break. why "for a break"?
Garko was tied for second in bases on balls (45); comma would be better here, since the second part is not a complete sentence.
He began to dislike Interleague Play no caps used in interleague play.
Can you expand on how the Indians did in the postseason?
Could you expound on what "step-up as a hitter" means?
Any information on how he did in Korea?
The KBO does not seem to keep statistics (I have looked for stats for other players as well without results), so no, I am afraid not. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Any reason for his release from the Rockies?
He stunk! That's probably the reason, but I can't find a source, so it'll just have to stay the way it is. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be confident the article is a GA when these are responded to (assuming you leave a response here regarding your edits). Albacore (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes addressed. Sorry I couldn't find out more about Korea or Colorado. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Remains a good article. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ryan Garko. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219175332/http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/062403aaa.html to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/062403aaa.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517033032/http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/rangers-will-waive-ryan-garko.html to http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/rangers-will-waive-ryan-garko.html
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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)