Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 World Series/archive1
- 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 SandyGeorgia 22:29, 23 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
It's been quite a while since I ventured into the FAC process with my own nomination (Wesley Clark and Alison Kraus), but I've worked on this article for quite a while and I believe it is up to snuff. It went through a peer review and has been built in the style of already-FA 2004 World Series (and, to a lesser degree, 1926 World Series). One issue that came up at 2004 World Series was the use of the logo as the lead image. I was on the side of using the logo, as this article does, but I'll happily change it if a free alternative is presented. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Except for the logo, all other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. The copyrighted logo qualifies for free use as an identification of the article's subject, as agreed across the project, with appropriate rationale. Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I'm COI-ed out of offering support for this article as a Yankees fan, and I've already promised copy-editing for another FAC, so I may unfortunately have little to offer here. I do, however, have a few source comments and queries:
- Content in the lead doesn't usually require a reference if it is included in the body (and it should be).
- How would you adapt it? Some of the past match-up stuff could be added to the intro stuff under "Series", but a lot of it seems like lead info. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Fanhouse (reference 14) a reliable source? I've read a few pages from there at various times, and it's basically a blog. FAs should have stronger sources than blogs, unless they are written by an expert in the field or are so-called by news outlets.
- It's a national columnist writing on a site associated with a major media company (AOL). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo in ref 36: "philadelpihaflyers.com."
- Italics should be used for printed ref publishers. I see the Seattle Times and New York Times as needed italics in places, and there may be others.
- They are all listed under publisher tags now. If they should be italics shouldn't the template do that? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spell out NESN in ref 46.
- What makes Bleacher Report (ref 65) reliable? Again, their content strikes me as bloggish.
- Removed, it just duplicated content from the ref before. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 72 needs a publisher (ESPN).
- What makes tvbythenumbers.com (ref 81) reliable? Incidentally, this incorrectly says that the reference is from Fox Sports (I hope not; their links go down in rapid fashion).
- It is correct, they are hosting press releases from Fox Sports. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another typo in ref 100: Huffinton needs a g.
- Taking a brief glance at the game summaries, there is a lot of uncited content in the game 5 summary. This should be cited during the course of this FAC.
Best of luck with this article. This is my favorite topic ever at FAC, and brings back some warm memories of last fall. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that now. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Object I'm surprised nobody has complained about the content yet. Normally in the lead-up to finals, tournaments etc, the pundits will discuss the various strengths and weaknesses of the teams, and what the key match-ups may be, or how the teams should play to target the weaknesses of their opponents. In the background section of the article, there are only parts about the winning statistics of the two teams, and some personal milestones by some players. eg strong/weak fielding, fast running, big hitting, which pitchers are effective against which types of batsmen etc (eg in cricket, some bowlers do well against left-handers but not right-handers etc so a team may choose to select lots of right-handers if the opposition bowlers don't like them, etc) I think this is important, but this is the second sports article I checked today about a sports team or their campaign and neither had any discussion on strengths and weaknesses. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What precisely do you want? This is written exactly in the format of 2004 World Series. The "leadup" section is merely a brief summary of the 2009 Yankees and Phillies seasonal articles are. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I found an example on a google search. [2] The first two entries are blacklisted by wiki, and may or may not be RS, in which case respectable outlets can be found. Before finals matches, the analysts always go through the strengths and weaknesses of each team and speculate on how they might play to exploit these, or which key pitcher can nullify a bighitter from the other team. In those two examples they speculate that certain pitchers will be more effective against left-handers, so they can do well against Philly, and that NYY's relief pitchers are weak, so Philly may play it safe counter-attack with the bat later in the game once the frontliner pitchers have to rest. Those sorts of things. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article also doesn't summarise the series as to why one team won and the other lost. It just gives a bunch of sequential plays but doesn't explain which pitcher from the winning team nullified the opposition batsman, or whether the NYY won because of a batter slogging the other guys. It just says, this guy hit a ball here, then there was no run, etc. There isn't even a table or anything at the bottom to show which players were most effective with the bat or ball, it only has who scored a run in an individual match. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you like added? I suppose a series stats box could be added (although that would bump up against and probably violate WP:NOT#STATS in my opinion), but fundamentally this article does describe how the teams won the games. Each game summary describes precisely every single run-scoring event in the series, every pitching and defensive substitution, what else is out there to put in? Staxringold talkcontribs 06:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 1b/1c. I must concur with YellowMonkey that an entire section of detailed analysis of the matchup is missing. In the American press, there are usually lots of newspaper and magazine special sections dedicated to this content area. You'll have to hit the library and/or access databases like Access World News to get those back issues. Virtually all of your references are online, indicating you probably haven't explored this level of research. With regard to the comment about the 2004 World Series article, we want to be careful not to have an "template" for creating these articles at the expense of eschewing their individual needs. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add this stuff, but my question is what precisely you want. I ask this because about 90% of those articles are "THE YANKEES ARE AWESOME. CC WILL DESTROY THE EARTH AND JETER'S RBI TOTAL WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN." in the NY press and vice versa for Philly. It strikes me as something like "Critical reception" sections for TV and film, you have to pick and choose which always worries me that I'm introducing OR into something. I've got no classes tommorrow though, I'll dig around. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you can safely disregard local press. AP sportswriters do these sorts of things, as do publications like Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, and any number of baseball magazines. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a "Series preview" section (still working), let me know what you think! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 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.