Talk:2017 World Series/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 23:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Give me a day or so. I've just gone through the refs and cleaned some of them up, but was left with a couple initial comments on the referencing:

• What makes ref 108 (and other uses of Sports Media Watch) a reliable source?
• Same with Refs 100 and 102 -- Awful Announcing?
  • Awful Announcing is a pretty good blog that focuses on the broadcasters, which get little attention from the mainstream sources. They're neutral and factual, and cited in 2015 World Series, which passed GAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Similar with Sports Media Watch, other than I don't know that I've used them in other GAs. They're not the most mainstream site, but their info is solid, neutral, and informative. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to review this. I believe we've had Awful Announcing as a source before, I can check back into some past GA reviews to see what's been said about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• "With the Astros and Dodgers having waited a combined 84 years for a championship (the Dodgers last won the World Series in 1988, and the Astros had never won since their 1962 formation), this was the third straight year in which the World Series teams had waited a combined 50 years or more to win a World Series, following 2015 at 59 years and 2016 at 176 years. Both teams had not lost at home this postseason leading to the World Series." The listed reference for the paragraph contains none of this information.
  • Removed. Seems trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "With a 101–61 regular season record, the team won its first American League West title since moving from the National League Central starting in its 2013 season, and their first division title since 2001." Source? And might be worth mentioning the NL to AL move back up when discussing the team's post-season history.
  • Sourced. I moved the info about moving from the NL to the AL in the notes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "led to questions about whether the Dodgers would succeed in the postseason." This could use a "by whom" tag, and a source.
  • Removed the whole part about the slump. It was obviously much ado about nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Need a source for the five consecutive NL West titles.
  • Sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Entering the 2017 World Series, the Dodgers bullpen had thrown 23 consecutive scoreless innings, a postseason record for a bullpen." Not seeing this in the source at the end of the paragraph, either.
  • Sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

More after I sleep. Courcelles (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Summary section looks fine.
  • Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Pre-game ceremonies section is fine, though is there a reason for it to exist and not to separate it out and include it in each game's section? Also, strikes me as odd to reverse the First-pitch-Anthem order for game 7.
  • Yeah.... I don't love it as it is, but see Talk:2017 World Series#Ceremonial First Pitch for the whole tl;dr explanation on why it became the way it is. Some didn't want ceremonial first pitches and such in the article at all, I wanted it in the game summaries, this was the compromise. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Aaah, a classic Wikimedia compromise where no one likes the outcome, but lives with it anyway! Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Game 1 and game 2 summaries look fine. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Darvish left the game after ​1 2⁄3 innings, which was the shortest outing of his career." Needs in-line citation for the last clause.
  • Sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "As a result, Gurriel was suspended for the first five games of the 2018 MLB season without pay" By whom, the team or the Commissioner?
  • The commish. The source says so, I added it to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Bregman homered off of Jansen in the bottom of the ninth but the Dodgers managed to even up the series." Might this flow better as two complete sentences?
  • I think it flows better with this rewrite: "Bregman hit a home run off of Jansen in the bottom of the ninth inning, but the Dodgers won the game to even up the series." – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "This was his shortest home start of the season." Citation?
  • Deleted. That sounds like one too many qualifiers to be worth keeping. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Game 5 could use a link to Hit by pitch.
  • Link added. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Bregman became the third youngest player to have a walk-off hit in the World Series ever." Citation?
  • Third youngest? I didn't see that in there before. Trivial, removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "the other were the Toronto Blue Jays" Should that be "the other was"? The citation in the middle seems to support the entire sentence, too.
  • You're right. A team is singular. Fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• "Game 5 lasted five hours and seventeen minutes, making it the second longest World Series game in history by time, trailing only the 14 inning contest between the Astros and the Chicago White Sox in Game 3 of the 2005 World Series in the same ballpark, as well as the third World Series game ever to go beyond five hours of game time." Citations for all of that?
  • The citation there doesn't have it? I'm not a WaPo subscriber and can't read it any more. Anyway, I'm adding more sourcing. And that's a run on sentence. Cut the trivial ballpark anecdote and can't find sourcing for the last clause, which isn't worth keeping. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• "This game is considered one of the greatest World Series games of all time.[84]" By whom? Could use more than one writer making such a claim, too.
  • Cut cut cut. I did not write that and never would. I missed it in my last spotcheck before I nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Game 6 looks fine.
  • Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• "The Astros became the third consecutive road team to win a World Series Game 7 as well as the fourth consecutive team to end a World Series on the road (after the 2014 Giants, 2015 Royals and 2016 Cubs). They also became just the second team to win a seven game League Championship Series and a seven game World Series in the same year, following the 1985 Kansas City Royals" Sources for that?
  • No, too trivial. Deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• "Winning player's share: $438,901.57. Losing player's share: $259,722.14." Source for those numbers?
  • I'll add the source for those numbers. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rather than put the reference in the linescore template, I created an "Impact and aftermath" section, which some other World Series articles have. Right now, it's just about the shares and parade. There won't be a lot more to add because it's only been a few months, but I can probably find some Houston Strong thing to include as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I instead found a record-loss by the Nevada sportsbooks and an SI cover to work in. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• "After Game 7, Correa proposed to his girlfriend, 2016 Miss Texas USA winner Daniella Rodríguez, on live television during a postgame interview conducted by Rosenthal. She accepted.[101]" Likely worth including, but... here, in the section about broadcasting?
  • I didn't know where else to put it, so it went in there because it was sort of about TV. Maybe I'll move it (back?) into Game 7. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I moved it to Game 7. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• I know there was a Spanish broadcast on a Fox Sports cable channel -- I had to watch it since my cable company and local FOX station were having a fight. Can/Should it be mentioned with broadcasters?
  • Found a ref mentioning Fox Deportes' broadcast and their broadcasters. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• "This series turned out to be the 3rd highest rated since 2005, trailing only the 2009 World Series and the 2016 World Series.[102] For the second straight year, Game 5 beat out NBC Sunday Night Football in ratings.[103]" Clarify we're talking about only the US ratings here -- and I presume only the English broadcast on FOX.
  • Clarified it's the Nielsen ratings, which are only U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Sponsorship section... a whole level 2 heading for two sentences strikes me as undue weight for a minor detail. Could easily be squeezed into the background section further up.
  • Probably. That detail was initially in the lead, I believe, but someone moved it to the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• The note needs a citation, though I admit I knew it without looking it up.
  • Added. And I added more citations to that paragraph. Apparently it was coin flips that determined HFA for all WS matchups until 1925.[1] I did not know that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Still to come is an image review. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• The logo is non-free and has tagging that is valid and a rationale I agree with.
• File:2017 World Series program (cropped).jpg would seem to have problems with WP:NFCC criteria 8. Indeed, the given rationale "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." calls itself into question as the logo is fulfilling that purpose as the primary means of identification.
  • Agreed, removed – Muboshgu (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• File:Astros Strong.png is, at least in the opinion of this Commons admin, correctly tagged and would survive a deletion discussion over there. The Texas silhouette is not a "Simple geometric shape" but neither it is an original work that qualifies this badge for copyright protection.
• All other images are appropriately freely licensed and tagged.

Think this is everything I have, though I may do another read-through later. At any rate, moving this to hold status, primarily to work on adding citations. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty! That's some work to start doing. And I'll start it tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: any progress? Courcelles (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I just thought about this on my commute home. I've been busy and tomorrow is fully booked. I will make progress on it this week. Maybe now I can do a few things. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I will finish it off soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

​ I think I've addressed all points now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Noted. Will look when I get home tonight. Courcelles (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good, passing. Courcelles (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)