Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1962 National League tie-breaker series/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [1].

1962 National League tie-breaker series[edit]

1962 National League tie-breaker series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a series. The longest 9-inning game in history (at the time), the last 3-game tie-breaker, a pennant in the balance, and 8 Hall of Famers in the mix between the two teams? Fun fun fun. The general game play facts are cited by the general references which are repeated at the end of each paragraph for clarity (as requested in the GAN). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I am not an expert on baseball references, but as far as I can see these are all mainstream and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is inpenetratable to non baseball fans. 86.141.247.236 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How can I improve it? From my experience reading soccer and cricket articles this is no more complex than those subjects. You cannot expect to explain terms like single, double, triple, and home run for every baseball article. I don't know how one can describe a game (particularly a complex one like Game 2) without either taking 10 pages for an inning or assuming some knowledge (what it means if a runner advances a base, etc). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on this point: The nominator is obviously correct. It is very difficult to imagine any "non-baseball fan" having any interest at all in an article titled 1962 National League tie-breaker series. The article is entirely comprehensible to anyone with a basic understanding of the game of baseball (including anyone sufficiently interested in the topic to read the Wikipedia baseball article and thus acquire such an understanding).—DCGeist (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the top, and don't think the article is at all inpenetrable, but I did find minor glitches indicating someone should run through again. I also think someone should write the blooming box score article, and explain how it works in baseball, link it to the top of Game 1, since it is true that non-baseball fans may have no idea how to read a box score, and what the winning and losing pitchers below mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would work, but shouldn't the Baseball WikiProject have a guideline about that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said below, 04 and '26 World Series already passed FAC with similar formatting, we've never had this issue before. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Are current refs 18 and 19 (Boston globe) by staff writers for UPI? If so, perhaps putting "staff" or "United press international" would clear up some confusion, as the refs as they stand imply that United Press Interational owns or publishes the Boston Globe.
  • It's listed in the "Agency" field, I'm not quite getting how you want the references altered to make it clear that UPI is like the AP. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the author of that be "staff writer" or "United Press International Staff" then? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, sorry for the talk page msg I just left, you obviously are keeping track of this given the quick reply. :) So should I list "UPI staff" as the author and leave UPI under agency, or remove UPI under agency? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Q[reply]
  • Either works for me, it just makes it clearer that it's a press agency report. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know we've accepted Retrosheet in the past, but per their FAQ how does this meet the "high quality" requirement for FAC?
  • This one I'm leaving out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can remove most of them if you want, they merely restate the same information listed at Baseball-Reference. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using your FAC cheat-sheet, hasn't retrosheet already been established at FAC here? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that, since it's reliable, it's OK for baseball stats, since we can't expect to find academic or university sources for baseball stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments User:YellowMonkey
    • What are the numbers in the brackets after the home run scorers. Is that a career or season total to date?
      They are seasonal totals, that's universally how they are denoted in box scores (and you'll note in Game 1, where Mays hit 2, multi-HR games are noted by a # outside the parentheses). Staxringold talkcontribs 02:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This goes to the specificity vs. accessibility issue voiced above. I could explain everything in the article in more generally understandable detail, but the article would be 15 pages long before talking about the first game. The box score article is linked, and those are really just quick table'd summaries of the actual game. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably these teams played each other multiple times in the 162 round robin matches. What were the results, which players did well in these matches? This is standard stuff as they give standard pointers to what may be upcoming, especially the home/away breakdown given that one team gets two home games
      Excellent ideas, I'll get on adding some of this. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who were the players used in the matches and their position, at the moment, it only mentions people who did stuff
    • Did they change the teams between matches due to loss of form/tactical changes etc, eg after the 8-0 caning?
A listing would be good, but I'm guessing there may have been a few changes after the first game as well, due to poor performance (or possibly eyebrows in the reports if there weren't) which would be useful things to discuss YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Baseball lineups are not something that feature massive changes, because the game is built for a longhaul season (162 games). Heck, it was practically national news when Joe Torre moved Alex Rodriguez down in the batting order in one postseason series. The only difference I noted in looking at the lineups a while back was I don't think Duke Snider played in Game 1, but none of the sources made a particular deal out of it. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just did a full breakdown of the Dodgers' lineups, they had the same 2B, SS, RF, CF, and C for all 3 games. The only variations were Walls at first in Game 1 and Carey at third base in game 1 (with Tommy Davis, the 3B in games 2 and 3, in left field replacing Duke Snider, the LF for games 2 and 3). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the Giants were the same, identical starters except trying Haller at catcher and McCovey in left in game 2. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – After a full reading, I think this needs some more work on the writing. The issue of jargon is one that I struggle with since I am a passionate sports fan, and I'm not the most qualified reviewer to judge on that. There were a few things I caught, however, along with some more basic prose concerns that should have been taken care of before coming to FAC.

  • "breaking a 35-scoreless-innings streak" To me, a more direct way of saying it would be "breaking a 35-inning scoreless streak". I don't think that's any more difficult to understand for a newcomer.
  • The abbreviated version of National League should appear after the first use, not the second.
  • Background: "though they fell back mid-April". Is "in" or "by" missing from this?
  • "Late in the season the Dodgers held the league lead, including a four-game lead with seven games left to play and a two-game lead with three left to play." So a lead includes a lead? I don't know if this makes sense when reading it. What do you think of "Late in the season the Dodgers held the league lead; they were ahead by four games with seven remaining, and maintained a two-game lead with three left to play." I know that's wordier, but it's a template to be improved upon, and the including problem isn't there.
  • Game 1: Here's something that could be confusing for non-baseball fans: "because Koufax allowed three runs over a single inning pitched." This is because he was taken out during the second inning, and non-baseball fans aren't likely to know the related scoring rule. Can't think of a good way to rephrase it, however.
  • It now reads "Koufax allowed three runs over without recording an out in the second inning." I think "over" should be dropped. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game 2: "The Giants scored first for the second game". Something feels slightly off. Should "consecutive" be added in here, or should it be "in the second game"?
  • "in an attempt to put out Wells. Wells...". Would be better to avoid the repetition of the name in consecutive words.
  • Heh, that's one of the most confusing parts. You have a batter (Wills) driving a runner (Walls) around.
  • "Wells slid hard into the Giants' catcher Haller-cutting his arm deep enough to later require six stitches-causing him to drop the ball". The hyphens should be dashes of some kind; the longer em dashes are what you want to use if you want to not have spaces.
  • "Gilliam then also walked, advancing Wills to third." I think you mean second.
  • Game 3: "Manager Alvin Dark had chosen to try not hold Wills to the first base bag...". Grammar is off. "had chosen not to try and hold Wills to the first base bag" would be better.
  • The most memorable thing about this series in a baseball sense is that the Dodgers were one inning away from winning the pennant before the Giants came back. That is completely glossed over here. I would expect to see this mentioned somewhere in the game summary. Just having this would make what follows more engaging for readers, whether or not they are baseball fans.
  • Aftermath: What is TSN?

In addition, I find the article to be under-punctuated throughout in terms of commas etc. When you have something like "and scored on the catcher's throwing error trying to catch him extending the Dodgers' lead to 4–2" without a well-placed comma, the whole meaning of something can be interpreted differently than is intended. Just another thing to work on while looking at these. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concern: just File:Koufax1.JPG. Who said this was published without a copyright notice or registration (or that it was published at all)? No publication information was given. Did anyone perform a search on the plausible copyright owner with the US Copyright Office? Jappalang (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. In the interests of full disclosure I've never understood the American obsession with rounders, but I think this article falls short in at least two areas. The first is that's pretty impenetrable to a non-baseball fan, but the second is that it's rather poorly written in places. A few examples, and I stress that they're just examples:
  • The level of writing has been addressed ad nauseum. This is certainly no more difficult to understand than, for example, the specific language of biology or warship articles. Yes, if you don't know what a home run is you'll have to click through, but the article becomes far worse if every instance of such language is explained in crushing detail. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first game took place at Candlestick Park while the second and third were played at Dodger Stadium." So, the first, second, and third games were played simultaneously?
    • "The playoff series was necessary after both teams finished the season with records of 101–61." And for the uninitiated, what does that mean?
    • "The Dodgers evened the series with an 8–7 victory in Game 2, breaking a 35-inning scoreless streak for the Dodgers ...". Is it really necessary to repeat "The Dodgers"?
  • Reworded, though it is necessary to be clear in one way or another (I've reworded differently) who was on the scoreless streak. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's rather unlikely that I'll be changing my mind about this article, but who can tell. I'll simply add for now that I can't recall having seen "even" used as a verb before. "Level" yes, but not "even". Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 300k+ results (when included in quotes), but changed. I have to say the initial review did have a slightly harsh tone ("poorly written", semi-sarcastic notes like "so the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd were played simultaneously") for some pretty small tense/grammar issues. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave you some examples, and I could have given you many others. I'm afraid that my oppose stands, and as you consider my observations to have been "harsh" and "sarcastic" I will offer you no further examples of where this article falls short of the FA criteria. Other reviewers may of course be more generously inclined than I am now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just rather tiresome and turns me off from bothering with FAC, which is rather contrary to the process being the primary goal of Wikipedia. This is my second FAC of the year, both with (I think it's fair to say) reasonably high quality articles and people barely even return to their reviews. Since I can't alter your oppose if you won't suggest things to change the review may as well close now. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is of course your choice. Your other choice was to listen to what I was saying, which you have chosen not to do. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made every change you requested and noted, rather politely, that I thought your language was unnecessarily jarring. At which point you said you likely won't change your vote and won't suggest anything else to change. Where didn't I listen to what you're saying? I'm happy to improve the article in any way possible. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still missing the point, as I requested no changes at all. I simply made some observations that you characterised as "harsh" and "sarcastic", as a result of which I have no further interest in helping you with this article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then your edit summary of "your choice" is untrue. I don't really have a choice, you're just going to leave an un-fixable oppose vote here, which is effectively a death sentence. How would you characterize calling parts of the article "poorly written" and suggesting my view on a piece of prose was common in "tabloid press perhaps"? Every other reviewer has simply pointed out the flaws they find without feeling the need to twist the knife. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just a very small cog in the FA wheel, and there may well be other cogs who support your position rather than mine. All you need is for two or three of them to come along and say that it's perfectly comprehensible to a non-baseball fan and well written. I don't have any kind of a fiat, all I have is an opinion, and I've given it. It's for others to make decisions. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) On the clarity to non-fan issues, what can I do? That's a serious question, as discussed above with you and the IP editor much earlier, how can you clarify this article for the generic reader without completely destroying it? Looking at last week's FACs (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but for a reference point), biological terms like Dental formula or the meaning behind the various military terms for ship articles are not explained in article beyond a wikilink to their main article. If you see specific issues (Giants2008 noted a bit of prose involving complex baserunning that was confusing that I fixed with a slight rewrite) great! But on the general tone I don't know what to do. A stolen base is a stolen base, an error is an error. Yes that language will sound foreign if you are not familiar with the game, but such is the prose in any article on a specific (rather than general topic) article. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This victory advanced the Giants to the 1962 World Series where the defending champion ...". "Where" refers to geographical locations.
  • A perfectly common way of phrasing it in the tabloid press perhaps. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Giants acquired both Billy Pierce and Don Larsen ...". What does "both" add here?
    • "... held at least a share of that lead continuously from April 28 to June 7". How can you "hold a share of a lead"?
  • Two teams have the same record leading a division, wild card, or in this case league. For example, when the tie-breaker became necessary (at the end of the traditional regular season) both teams had share of the National League lead because they both had the league-best 101-61 records. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... noting their large successes". In what way can a success be considered "large"?
    • "Additionally, the 1962 tie-breaker series was the last MLB tie-breaker ...". Some repetition there, wouldn't you agree?

Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "evened the series" is standard American baseball speak for "tied the series". If this is an issue for reviewers, how about changing the article to "tied the series"? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 26 September 2010 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1962_National_League_tie-breaker_series/archive1&oldid=1089085989"