Talk:Ian Kennedy

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– Was recently looking for the article on Ian Kennedy (lawyer) (Sir Ian McColl Kennedy) and was surprised to see the baseball player occupying the primary page at Ian Kennedy. I think this occurred because the baseball player article was created first, and if the lawyer article had been created first then the situation would be the other way round. I don't think either person has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim to the Ian Kennedy page, so I think that should be a disambiguation page. Am willing to fix the links from the baseball player's article if this gets moved. The instructions at WP:RM said to create this discussion on either this page or the talk page of the other page, but would it be acceptable for me to leave notices at the other Ian Kennedy pages, as I think the editors there would want to contribute to this discussion as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The ballplayer averages thousands of pageviews per month, up to 15,000 in Sept, while the lawyer averages 300 and has a fraction of the incoming wikilinks. To help those seeking the lawyer find him more easily, while not inconveniencing the majority seeking the ballplayer, simply add Ian Kennedy (lawyer) to the hatnote. Station1 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a point, but Ian Kennedy is not just a lawyer. He has been Dean of the Law School at King's College London, is currently Emeritus Professor of Health Law, Ethics and Policy at University College London, has hosted a C4 television program, has numerous honorary fellowships, and has served on many government commissions and advisory bodies. In 2002, he was knighted for his services to medical law and bioethics. Clearly he is an eminent personage within his profession. I'm not sure how famous a baseball player Ian Kennedy is (compared to other baseball players), but that is the perspective I'm looking at this from. The relevant bit of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". My contention is that Sir Ian McColl Kennedy has greater enduring notability and educational value than the baseball player, so while I accept that the baseball player gets far more page views, the logical compromise is to disambiguate them both and make Ian Kennedy the disambiguation page. Carcharoth (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you are saying is reasonable and I don't necessarily disagree until we get to that very last phrase about a logical compromise. By making Ian Kennedy a disambiguation page rather than adding Sir Ian to the hatnote, you do not benefit Sir Ian in any way (readers will not get to his article directly in either case; they must click through either a dab page or a hatnote), but you do inconvenience the larger number of readers searching for the ballplayer by shunting them to a dab page where they do not wish to be. To me it is more logical to not cause a detriment to the greater number where it will not even benefit the smaller number. Station1 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. For the general example, what ratio of page views would tip the balance? (BTW, the incoming wikilinks are largely polluted by the templates the baseball player appears in - remove those and the imbalance there is far less). Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you will find a range of opinions on that. For me, 200 views for A vs 100 views for B makes no difference, whereas 20,000 views for C vs 10,000 for D is more than enough, assuming it's consistent over time. Of course, views aren't the only consideration, but imo are often an important one. Station1 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the consensus is to move, the article should go to Ian Kennedy (baseball) because that's the standard disambiguation for baseball players. Jenks24 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it's a support or oppose: I know it may not do the knighted Ian Kennedy or the 20-game winning Ian Kennedy justice, but I'd say that you make them both disambiguated. We have a disambiguation page for three Ian Kennedys, and I think that should be the main Ian Kennedy page. Yes, that's not going to be popular with everyone, but it's the only way to give equal billing. Now, if Ian Kennedy the 20-game winner has a few more achievements to his name, then I'd make totally different comments. Right now, it's too early to say that a pitcher with 31 career wins is going to achieve more in his field than a lawyer with a knighthood. Being American, I'd never heard of the knighted Kennedy before today, but I know that a knighthood in Britain is serious stuff. So, I'd say to disambiguate both. -- Transaspie (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, your sentiments are in support of the move. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Station1; if thousands more people are looking for the baseball player than any other usage, the most efficient navigation strategy is to send them to the baseball player's article first. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moves; The disambiguator may need tweaking as noted above. The page views do not tell the whole story. The lawyer is a significant player in world history; The baseball player is insignificant outside of the USA. In that there are three articles to disambiguate (plus a redlink), the best option is to go with no primary topic and move the DAB to the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend that none of the Ian Kennedys get moved until Thursday. Ian Kennedy, the pitcher, has a chance at winning a major award, and it's Thursday is when it gets announced. If he wins that award, then my Support becomes an Oppose. I had forgotten that he was in the running for that award, and I know that your stature rises rather sharply if you win that. Yes, in life, it may not mean as much as being a lawyer with a knighthood, but in popular culture, people are going to be more aware of you solely for that one award. Let's wait until Thursday...everything could change with this requested move that day. -- Transaspie (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if he wins that award, where does it leave him? A 26 year old pitcher who's a little slower than the fastest, and who has won some notable awards and victories against his fellow Americans but has little international profile. He may have a great future, I hope he does, but we should wait and see. Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The chances of him winning that award are very slim.. he's probably going to finish third or fourth in the voting. But in any event, his popularity as a professional baseball player is large among american sports fans. I doubt even most people in britain have heard of the other guy. Spanneraol (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per page views, ~2000 vs. ~300 in the past thirty days. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose... As i said above.. I doubt the "other" Ian Kennedy is even well known among his own countrymen... Sure he's accomplished academic fields.. but the common man probably doesn't follow those areas that much.. the disparity in page hits seems to bear this out. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ian Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk · contribs) 11:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I will be reviewing this! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • 116 references, and they all look good!
    • And props to you for wading through all of those! — GhostRiver 13:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • ”as a freshman, and was” – No comma needed.
  • ”Despite a slump” – “Though he slumped”
  • ”Kennedy was unable to hold his minor-league momentum with the Yankees, however, and missed most of the 2009 season with an aneurysm in his arm.” – “Kennedy spent parts of three seasons with the Yankees, missing most of the 2009 season with an aneurysm in his arm.”
  • ” After two strong seasons in San Diego, a hamstring issue soured Kennedy's 2015 performance” – “He spent two strong seasons in San Diego before a hamstring issue soured his 2015 performance.” End the sentence there.
  • ” and he opted to become a free agent at the end of the year, allowing him to sign with Kansas City. These injuries continued for several more seasons until the Royals moved Kennedy to the bullpen for the 2019 season.” – “He opted to become a free agent at the end of the year, then signed with the Royals. Injuries continued to plague him until the Royals moved him to the bullpen for the 2019 season.”
  • ”leading MLB in saves” – “recording 30 saves that season.” (I’d also recommend mentioning the save total in the text later on.)
  • ” Kennedy signed with the Rangers, under new management from his former teammate Chris Young, in 2021.” – “Kennedy signed with the Rangers in 2021.” – The Young thing’s good to mention in the body but probably too specific for this article’s lead.
  • No comma needed after setup man

Early life[edit]

  • From the same place as Balester! (Don’t mention that in the article, haha.)
  • ”fractured patella, but managed” – No comma needed.
  • ” Kennedy finished his high school career in 2003 with a 39–2 record” – “Kennedy graduated high school in 2003 with a 39–2 record”

College career[edit]

  • Link no-hitter on first mention in the first paragraph, and delink it in the third paragraph.
  • ”USC fell” – “the Trojans fell” – just to make that plural verb seem a little more natural.
  • No comma needed after Super Regional.
  • ”scored a hit” – “recorded a hit”

Minor leagues[edit]

  • ”of June, and won” – No comma needed
  • ”129 strikeouts, and was” – No comma needed

New York Yankees[edit]

  • ”after straining” – “because he strained” (to avoid repeating after so quickly)
  • Link International League
  • Put the date of his start against the Angels.
  • ”in Triple-A, but began” – Comma not needed.
  • ”his biceps, and underwent” – Comma not needed.

Arizona Diamondbacks[edit]

  • ”70 batters, and led” – No comma needed.
  • I wouldn’t bother to mention Hudson, unless they’d both been competing for the Opening Day start.
    •  Done swapped for his spring training stats — GhostRiver 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Don’t need to mention Putz”
  • I’d mention that he finished fourth in Cy Young voting. (Still think he should’ve won it, though Kershaw did also have a good year.)
  • ”among the top in the NL” – “among the leaders in the NL”
  • What day did Arizona clinch?
  • ”regular season luck” – “regular season success”
  • ”division rivals the” – “the division rival”
  • ”Kennedy accidentally struck three batters with a pitch: first, a sixth-inning fastball glanced off of Yasiel Puig's face; the next inning, Kennedy struck catcher Miguel Montero in the back.” – “Kennedy accidentally struck three batters with a pitch. First, he glanced a fastball off of Yasiel Puig’s face in the sixth inning. In the next inning, Kennedy struck catcher Miguel Montero in the back.”
  • I think you have the wrong catcher listed—Montero was his catcher.
  • ”After striking” – “After Kennedy struck”
  • ”After the incident” – Take this out to avoid repeating after; I think it’ll be pretty evident what Kennedy was suspended for.
  • ”for 10 games, for” – No comma needed.

San Diego Padres[edit]

  • Don’t mention Ross in the second paragraph, especially as Kennedy (the No. 2) wasn’t behind Ross (the No. 3).
    • I put "between" instead of "behind", as I think that's what I meant to say, but would not be opposed to taking Ross out as well. — GhostRiver 13:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”4.28 ERA, but showed” – No comma needed.
  • Can take out as anticipated in the last sentence—redundant.

Kansas City Royals[edit]

  • ”Manager Ned Yost referred to the injury as "slight", and his removal precautionary” – “Manager Ned Yost said the removal was precautionary for a “slight” injury.”
  • ”He later” – “Kennedy later”
  • ”when Kansas City defeated Detroit 3—1” – I’d take this out, as you don’t describe the last win before the drought.
    • That actually describes the win that broke the drought, so I clarified — GhostRiver 13:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”2016 season, going” – “2016 season, in which he went” (Also change “striking” to “struck”).
  • At the end of the 2018 paragraph, “in which he went” instead of “where he went”
  • Add “For the period” to the start of the “Between May 30 and September 23…” sentence.
  • Instead of the amount of games finished, I’d put the amount of saves Kennedy recorded (and perhaps the amount of blown saves as well).
  • I’d link injured list on first mention, since non-baseball people might think it’s different from the disabled list.
  • ”ground ball, but began” – No comma needed.

Texas Rangers[edit]

  • ”and his fellow” – Probably don’t need “his”

Philadelphia Phillies[edit]

  • ”to serve as” – “hoping he would serve as”
  • Probably don’t need “in turn” in the last sentence”

Pitching style[edit]

  • ”have drawn” – “has drawn”
  • ”to Mike Mussina” – “to that of Mike Mussina”
  • ”have also become” – “became”

Personal life[edit]

  • ”wedding, but were” – “wedding, but they wound up being”
  • I’d move the sentence about Isaac to after the sentences about Evelyn, since she’s older.

Nice start as usual; mostly minor fixes. Let me know when you’ve finished, and I’ll give it another look! (Still think he should’ve won the 2011 NL Cy Young Award, but oh well…) Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanfranciscogiants17 I think I hit everything! As for the Cy Young, well, Kershaw was obviously for optic reasons, but I'm not going to say Kennedy was more deserving than two of the Four Aces ;) — GhostRiver 14:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GhostRiver Looks good now, passing. Nice job on a long article! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Kennedy&oldid=1207948620"