Talk:Cy Seymour

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cy Seymour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems generally OK and the prose looks fine. However, I have a few concerns about the comprehensiveness of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Seymour played semi-professional baseball for a team in Plattsburgh, New York": Looking at the source, and to avoid the obvious "for who?" question, maybe rephrase as "Seymour played semi-professional baseball in Plattsburgh, New York".

• Done.

• I can find no mention of the "New York Metropolitans" in the source.

• In-line citation added.

• "Seymour signed with the New York Giants of the National League (NL) during the 1896 season, making his Major League Baseball (MLB) debut": Not supported by given ref.

• In-line citation added.

• "In 1898, he won 25 games, had a 3.18 ERA, and led the NL in strikeouts with 239.[1] During the 1898 season…" Remove second "1898"?

• Done.

• "Seymour began to play in the outfield in 1898 due to the poor hitting of the Giants' outfielders, though the team insisted he would not shift positions": I'm afraid I can't make sense of this. It needs making clearer.

• Clarified.

• New York Giants linked twice.

• Fixed.

• Significant gaps between 1900 and 1906. From mentioning many stats, nothing is mentioned. Did he continue to pitch for Cincinnati or did he fade away. How did his batting go? How well did he do in these years other than 1905?

• Stats are mentioned, he batted .300 in those seasons, but even the SABR bio doesn't say more than that.

• The paragraph that begins "Seymour suffered an ankle injury that prematurely ended his 1907 season" is very disjointed. Only an ankle worth mentioning in 1907? Then, the remainder of the paragraph is very choppy; what is "Merkle's Boner"; better to briefly explain that to require clicking a link. Also, the "move back" incident is very strange to read as it just jumps out at the reader. Maybe smooth it in by explaining who Mathewson was, and what "moved back" means in this sense (i.e. I assume he was fielding and was being asked to move back for a particular batter).

• I've tried to smooth out this paragraph, and add an explanation on Merkle's Boner, not in what actually happened (Merkle missing second base isn't directly relevant to Seymour, and it's contained at the link), but in that the Giants lost the pennant as a result.

• I think we are struggling on in-depth coverage here. Just a quick glance at the sabr article reveals plenty of detail and background not in this article. For example, there is no real mention of how good Seymour was, or his place in the grand scheme of things. There is much more on his technique and how he was successful, and plenty of stuff on the seasons missing from this article.
• Sources seem fine and all spot-checks good except the one mentioned above.
• Deadball Era link is dead.

• Removed.

Images

• File:Cy-seymour.jpg has no indication of when/where it was originally published. If it was from a newspaper, there needs to be a date and issue of publication.
• File:New York Giants 1896.jpg also lacks information; the given link does not give an original publication date or support the pd status of the image.
• File:Cy Seymour baseball card.jpg: No publication date given or given in the source link.

All images verified as ok. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Overall, I have a few concerns, and will place the article on hold for one week as it needs a little work to pass. Feel free to argue with any of my points. (Formal review below) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A few issues detailed above

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Missing coverage of several seasons, and lacking details on other seasons where information seems to be available. Also, the site given for the current ref 1 has other information and analysis missing from the article.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   A few problems with verifying that these images are PD. The files lack sufficient information on publication, particularly the year of original publication.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A few issues to work on, placing on hold.

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the process of working on the prose-type comments. Regarding the images...

• File:Cy-seymour.jpg is freely available through the Library of Congress. There is no exact date, but the year is 1906, which suffices for public domain. [1]
• File:New York Giants 1896.jpg is public domain as it is from 1896.[2]
• File:Cy Seymour baseball card.jpg is from 1909-11. We don't know the exact date, but we again know it's prior to 1923.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced by the 1896 one, as there is no actual indication that the picture was published at that date, simply that it is from that date. I'm inclined to say its OK though. The other two are fine given the information presented here, but this information really needs to be added to the image pages to prove to anyone who looks that they are PD (which I agree they undoubtedly are). Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The NYPL source of the image doesn't give a date of publication. I presume 1896, but the image can be removed without compromising the quality of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I will attempt to expand the article further from the SABR source to ensure completeness of the article. However, I'm busy with work at the moment and going on vacation next week with no internet access. Do you mind keeping this on hold until after I return on June 1? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not a problem at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your flexibility re: my time. To update you, I've printed and highlighted bits in the SABR bio that seem worth adding. In addition to beefing up the career section, I will create a "Career perspective" (or similarly titled) section that compares him to some of the recognized all-time greats. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I originally said June 8 but let me know if you need a little longer. A few more days will not make much difference, as long as we finish fairly soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Any more news on this? It has been a week, and we are heading for a month for the nomination overall? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I've added a bit more and made it more complete, though I think I'll add a little more today and tomorrow. I don't want to go too overboard with the SABR article, much of which is extraneous. How does it look to you? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A few more points

• As a non-baseballer, I'm still not too sure how the poor hitting of outfielders meant that Seymour had to swap roles.
• "While coaching at third base, Seymour tackled...": I'm not getting this. Was he now a coach? Why was a coach on the field and so involved? Tackled in the football sense? This needs clarification.
• "After apologizing to McGraw,[22] McGraw suspended Seymour for eight weeks...": Sounds a little strange: McGraw apologised to McGraw?

Otherwise, I think this is good enough to pass now. I would recommend more work before going any further with this. The prose is ok for GA but needs quite a polish for FA level. There may also be other details to squeeze from the sources. But, once these last three points are sorted, I'm happy to pass this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Poor hitting led the team to figure they needed someone else to play the position. The SABR bio also mentions injuries among their regular outfielders, so I added that.
• Back then, players served as base coaches, as there were no full-time base coaches, until McGraw hired Latham as a result of the McCormick incident. As for "tackling", back then ballplayers did things they would never do now. I changed the wording to more closely match Mathewson's.[4]
• Rewrote this sentence.

This certainly does need more work if I nominate for FA. I'll consider how to go about that later. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)