Talk:1959 National League tie-breaker series/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: I'll review this either today or early tomorrow. —WFC— 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of this review is focused on criteria 1, along with a couple of baseball-specific points. I have no concerns over criteria 3-6. Criteria 2 will almost certainly be fine, but at time of writing I haven't spot checked the references. I haven't forgotten the lead, but I find that the best way to review it properly is to leave it until after everything else has been sorted.

Background

• Do you reckon there'd be value in putting the standings after 154 games alongside this section? Most of the work has already been done in 1959 Major League Baseball season, which I guess could be considered as an argument either way.

• I kinda like that idea. However, do you know how to get the text to wrap around the Wikitable? Here's the edited version with the correct 154 game standings.

• I've added it, in as close to the appropriate position as I could get. Off to follow the football (by radio due to traffic problems :( ), but will check everything else later. —WFC— 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1959 National League standings after 154 games	W	L	GB	Pct.
Los Angeles Dodgers	86	68	--	.558
Milwaukee Braves	86	68	--	.558
San Francisco Giants	83	71	3	.539
Pittsburgh Pirates	78	76	8	.506
Chicago Cubs	74	80	12	.481
Cincinnati Reds	74	80	12	.481
St. Louis Cardinals	71	83	15	.461
Philadelphia Phillies	64	90	22	.416

• I think "had a poor 1958 season" would better describe the Dodgers' year than "finished the 1958 season poorly". By the sounds of it, they weren't fantastic at the start either.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Techically, the September 26 game wasn't a no-hitter.

• Anymore, it was at the time though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The Dodgers were 14-10 against the Braves overall for the season," I assumed that they'd have played 22 times before this play-off? If so, 12–10 after 154 games would probably be a more appropriate statistic for this point in the article. Apologies if I'm wrong. Also, an endash is needed.

• BAH! Right you are. I was looking at B-Ref's overall season count as I always do for these articles, but forgot to remove the tie-breaker games. Also changes the 1 run fact. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that this isn't strictly a GA thing, but I always like to give as much feedback as I can in a review. You're right to put the subject towards the start of a sentence. But while bearing that rule of thumb in mind, take every opportunity to avoid starting a sentence with "The Giants", "The Dodgers, "The Braves" etc. For instance, "The Braves won the NL that year with a 92–62 record, on the other hand, and..." could become "By contrast, the Braves won the NL that year with a 92–62 record, and..." Same goes for paragraphs, although admittedly they're extremely hard. I guess the fourth paragraph could start "Both the Dodgers and Braves finished the regularly scheduled 154-game season with 86–68 records, ..."

• Changed those 2. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Series

• I'm not too familiar with box score formatting, so there may be a good reason not to. But could the two teams' home runs be put on the same line?

• They certainly could be, but the last time I tried messing with the formatting for the box score template it got all wonky IIRC. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps swap the first two sentences of the first paragraph around? (last time I refer to the previous point, promise)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• A few endashes are missing. The ones I spotted were 3-2, 5-4 and 6-5. Ctrl + F should pick 'em up.

• I'll run the endash bot. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll return to this section tomorrow. On a first read, I struggled to find any further fault with the prose for the games. I found the second game particularly engaging.

Aftermath

• While accurate in a technical sense (the World Series is an inter-league playoff), would the Dodgers' achievement have actually been considered "reaching the playoffs" in 1959?

• Absolutely. The term would mean little since that was the only playoff, but sure. Plus nowadays it is absolutely considered making the playoffs retroactively. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The Dodgers' faced": no apostrophe needed.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Probably worth mentioning in passing who Ernie Banks played for.

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That'll do for today. I'll try to add to the series section tomorrow, and I'll do spot checks on the sources and have a look at the lead once the above is all sorted. It's mostly pretty minor stuff, and I look forward to promoting this article in the near future. Regards, —WFC— 08:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead and final points

• The first paragraph of the lead is great. It introduces the subject very nicely, and is of an appropriate length.
• At first sight I felt the summary for game one was too short (and that's part of the reason that I held off from reviewing the lead). I'd probably start it with "After a rain-delayed start, the Dodgers won Game 1..." simply to pad it out. Otherwise it was a low-scoring, tight, error-free game, so I agree that there's little more to say. But I don't think we get enough of a feel for the second, and that's largely down to chronology. Ideally it should go along the lines of: Braves leading from the first innings --> Dodgers coming back from three down in the ninth --> description of the winning run in the twelth --> Dodgers take the game and thus the series.

• Fixed, broke G2 into 2 sentences. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the baseball statistics sentence belongs somewhere in paragraph one. Paragraph two should focus on the event, rounded off with the bit on the World Series.

• That's where the sentence has been in the other articles. I don't feel like it makes sense to discuss what happens to the stats from the tie-breaker until there's a tie-breaker. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are six DABs.

• I'll fix them right up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Groundout is left as that isn't really a DAB and there's no better target I can find. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I read through the series section again. My conclusion was that I would struggle even to nit-pick it at FAC, and therefore that for the purposes of a GA review there is nothing to add. Once these final few issues are resolved I'll be very happy to pass this as a good article. Regards, —WFC— 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well thankee. As an aside, if you have the time could you check out the 62 article? I ran that through FAC, eventually I'd like to try again but dunno what to change. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll give it a go, but probably not today as I intend to see how many reasonable start class or better biographies I can create in a day. I'm satisfied that this meets the criteria, and have therefore passed the article. Keep up the excellent work! —WFC— 23:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)