Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1926 World Series

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 25 June 2008 [1].

1926 World Series

[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I enjoyed writing this article, and I hope you enjoy reading it! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support

Surly the Aftermath section could be exspanded?

Impressive though for an event from over 80 years ago. Buc (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok will give it another read when I have more time to see if there are any other problems. Buc (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

That's all for now. Buc (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is the first article involving my beloved Yankees to reach FAC during my time as a reviewer, and it's a World Series they lost? Come on! :-( Seriously, here are question marks from my first look.

I left you a note in Bole's photo comment, so take a look at that as well. Giants2008 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Game 2: "Alexander had pitched a 12–10 record in 200 innings" Pitched? Try compiled.
  • The caught stealing thing could be confusing for non-baseball fans, since he was actually safe. I'm sure people will wonder why it says caught, and won't know the rule on scoring such plays.
  • Sloppy wording: "Hornsby grounded out to the Koening".
  • "Yankees' manager Miller Huggins came out of the dugout and took Shocker out of the game and called in Bob Shawkey from the bullpen to replace him." Try "out of the game, calling in".
  • Game 4: "Hoyt had thrice been part of the New York Yankees team that went to the World Series". Try "Hoyt had thrice been part of New York Yankees teams that went to the World Series".
  • "allowing Gehrig to score and keep the bases loaded" Keeping.
  • I just noticed that Art Reinhart is an external jump in the Game 4 box score. Red links are not evil. If someone comes to this page and sees it, they can create an article themselves. That's how Wikipedia grows.
  • Game 7: The writing implies that Lazzeri's long fly ball didn't reach the stands. It did, but of course it went foul.
  • Another reviewer mentioned this earlier, but Aftermath could easily be expanded. The Yankees fielded the famous Murderers' Row team the following year, and the Cardinals became the dominant team in the National League for the next 20 years. There is much that can be written about this.
  • I see that Aftermath has been removed. I consider this a disappointment, as there was a lot that could have been written about the future success of the two teams. It was a short section, though.
  • Barry Levinson's book is listed in Further reading. This should be removed since it is used as a reference, per WP:CITE.

There were a couple other things I saw, but I can't remember them now. I also fixed a few things myself. If I had to vote on this one, I would be Neutral. It is well-referenced and fairly comprehensive, but the game recaps aren't compelling to me. There are some awkward passages at times. like these two from game 7: "Les Bell just barely made it to first base after shortstop Mark Koenig accidentally kicked the ball while trying to field it." Just barely? "and it appeared Haines had run into some problems." The bases were loaded and his finger was bleeding from a popped blister, so it goes without saying that he had "some problems". Perhaps this is from reading a lot of newspaper recaps, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I do wish you luck, as I always like to see sport-related articles succeed here. Giants2008 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to keep an article encyclopedic, but I still think this can be improved. I previously left more comments above, and here are a few more.
  • Game 1: "behind Johnny Mostil winner George Burns." Should be "behind winner George Burns and Johnny Mostil."
  • Game 2: Unneeded Babe Ruth link.
  • Game 3: Cardinals doesn't need a link.
  • "future Baseball Hall of Famer right-handed knuckleball pitcher Jesse Haines" First part of this is very awkward.
  • "but the Cardinals added to their lead by picking a run" Do you mean picking up?
For a good example of what I consider a quality game recap, see 2005 ACC Championship Game, a recently promoted FA. One more piece of advice I will give you is to try obtaining newspaper stories on the games, as well as those in The Sporting News or similar publications. Fresh information from these could be helpful. Giants2008 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did obtain all the NYT recaps of the games. I only used a few of them, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

This is what I get for traveling. Oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Brain cells are officially mush, sorry about that! It's now on my cheat sheet, so hopefully I'll not forget again! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

Overall awesome article - filled with jargon and POV though. Some comments:
Game 3
Game 4

Comments

Fixed the link. Only years have to be unlinked, if they are not used with a month and day. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I felt the links were relevant (they were only linked when associated with a particular World Series). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All other images look good from a copyright standpoint, nice work. Kelly hi! 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, the prose is much improved and more accessible. --Laser brain (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a for now. I didn't read past the lead because I got bogged down in prose issues. If the lead is representative of the rest of the text, it's rough. Why no peer review?[reply]


Support Comments and questions I think I should have stuck to the lead! That was a lot of detail for a non-sports person like myself! :) Here are my comments and questions.

  • I do not know anything about baseball, so when I read this article I was genuinely confused most of the time. It is very hard to follow games in this much detail if one does not know much about a sport. I have no idea if this problem can be remedied or if it should be, but let me give some examples from "Game 1". Let me know if these problems arose from ignorance or colloquial writing:
  • Billy Southworth advanced Douthit to third base with a slow grounder to Yankees' second baseman Tony Lazzeri. - What is a slow grounder vs. a grounder?
  • Cardinals' first baseman "Sunny Jim" Bottomley hit a bloop single - Is "bloop" a technical term?
  • With one out, Lou Gehrig came to the plate and grounded the ball to shortstop Tommy Thevenow, who flipped the ball to Hornsby - What does "flipped" mean?
  • Ruth lined a single past third baseman Les Bell. - Does this mean "hit along the line of the field"?
  • In the ninth inning, Jim Bottomley singled off Pennock. - What does "singled off" mean?
  • There seems to be excessive detail regarding the last game of the series in the last paragraph of the lead and it is written in a colloquial, sportscaster style.
  • Well, the 1926 World Series is most widely remembered for its dramatic conclusion. Given that this game is such a significant part of the subject, shouldn't it be covered in more detail in the lead? As far the sportscaster terms in that paragraph, I'll try to tone them down a bit. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Laser brain above, that some of the writing can be smoothed out, but I should not attempt this as I am unfamiliar with the topic. Exs:
  • Meanwhile, in the National League, the Cardinals and the Reds continued to battle for first place in the league. - Why "meanwhile" (it sort sounds like "meanwhile, back at the ranch")?
  • the Reds embarked on a multi-game losing streak - Does a team really "embark" on a losing streak?
  • I also thought there would be ancillary information regarding the players and the series - is this remembered as an important series? If so, why? When is it referred to? What other series is it compared to? Perhaps because I am not a baseball fan, I was looking for other sorts of information about sports culture at the time and thought perhaps there could be more said about this. Perhaps this information is just not available? Sorry to be so vague! Awadewit (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each series is unique, so I doubt there were any strong similarities with other World Series games. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the availability of materials regarding sports culture during this era. It seems pretty tangential to the subject to be written about in this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments pursuant to Awadewit's comments: My examples above were fixed but after reading the entire article, I'm really concerned about its accessibility. I'm thinking of how lost I've been reading rugby FACs from time to time. We can expect some foreknowledge; if people are truly lost, they should go read baseball first. But, we can make an effort to explain/link basic concepts and stifle the sportscaster lingo. Some examples:
    • The concept of stealing is never linked or explained.. "... and Lazzeri then attempted to steal home plate." Zoinks! Why would he do that?
    • I don't know if "top" and "bottom" of an inning is jargon.. I'd like to get some other opinions. Plenty of people don't know specialized terms like "port" and "starboard". "Beginning" and "end" for the masses?
    • Other puzzlers: "grounder", "popped up", "bloop single" (no idea), "grounded the ball", "flipped the ball", "groundout", "flied out", and so on. To be safe, I'd get a fresh pair of eyes on this just to go on a jargon hunt. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've just given it a copyedit, and will do another pass for jargon. It's easy to add wikilinks, but adding in-text explanations without ruining the patter of play-by-plays will be a challenge (I'm already bothered by 'the eighth inning' rather than just 'the eighth'). Nish, can you turn blooper (baseball) blue, and link to it from the pitiful blooper (disambiguation)? I'll work on jargon. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start, wikilinked stolen base, inning, grounder, pop, and bloop. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit and dejargonization, Maralia. Since I've been around baseball practically my whole life, it's difficult for me to take the perspective of a person unfamiliar with sports. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, honestly - it would have been tough, but Awadewit and Laser brain's lists helped clue me in to what people needed. I'll give it another readthrough today to see if I can smooth any more edges. Maralia (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working through this now, but having a rough time. Would like to find a better section heading than "Background", and "led" or "led by" is used repetitively, need some variation there, and finding undefined jargon and terms still. Also, a lot of commas, I changed a couple to emdashes. Working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at my edit summaries; they are suggestions only (feel free to revert anything), but I'd like to see a bit more of this kind of tightening of the prose and defining of lingo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

- I've made a few minor copy edits as I've read through the article. A few areas I think require some clarification/improvement:

  • "....far surpassing his previous season record of 8–13 record with a 4.92 earned run average (ERA)."
  • .."who hit over .400 the season before.."
  • Consider wikilinking "batting average" to the number itself, as the link in the word "hit" might be misinterpreted as an unnecessary link to a common word rather than a special usage. Alternately, consider changing the wording to "...who had a batting average of .400..."
  • (from the quote at the bottom of the season summary: "There's no doubt in their doubt or in mine that the Yankees will win.[20]"
  • No doubt in their doubt? Possible copy-typing error.
  • "...gaining 16 wins and 12 losses."
  • Consider switching "gaining" with either attaining or earning
  • ..."hitting another grounder right, who threw it to first baseman Lou Gehrig..."
  • What is the name of the player who threw the ball to Gehrig? (I am trying very hard not to think of Abbott and Costello while reading this sentence.)
  • "...but was tagged out by Bell."
  • I think you need to wikilink "tagged out" to something, I'll let you figure out to what. (Note - this phrase appears multiple times, wikilink the first one)
  • "Thevenow had only two home runs in his career, both of which were inside-the-park and during the 1926 regular season."
  • Would this have been his third? Would it be more correct to say "Thevenow had only two other home runs..."?
  • "Both teams were held scoreless by the respective opposing pitchers until the fourth inning."
  • Consider simplifying to "Both teams were held scoreless until the fourth inning."
  • "...was called safe by the umpire."
  • Is there something you can wikilink "safe" to?
  • "Hoyt had thrice been part of New York Yankees teams that went to the World Series, and by the 1926 World Series, he had over 35 innings of pitching experience in the championship series."
  • This sentence feels awkward to me, perhaps because of the word "thrice". Does this work better:
"This was Hoyt's fourth [or is it third?] World Series with the New York Yankees, and he entered the 1926 Series with over...."
  • "...O'Farrell promptly tagged up ..."
  • Another wikilinking opportunity for "tagged up", especially as "tagged" to this point has referred to "tagging out".
  • "Ruth worked the count..."
  • Either wikilink or find a way to say this without jargon.
  • "...Pennock hit a line drive a double into left field ..."
  • Was it a line drive, a double, or a line drive double? (I wasn't sure so I didn't fix it.)
  • "...winning by a score of three to two."
  • Why is this the only score that is spelled out?

I can remember when the Series games were played during the day, and there was always someone at school who smuggled in a transistor radio to catch the scores; this article has a similar feel to it. I can see how a neophyte would have a challenge with some of the specialist vocabulary, but with a few more wikilinks I think most of the key terms will be covered. Risker (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose for now, just some quibbles and concerns about jargon.

Fine article, just some quibbles, mainly jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start working on dejargonization soon. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Baseball is so familiar to many U.S. readers that the jargon can be hard to spot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1926_World_Series&oldid=1180735815"