Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 November 2023 [1].

---

Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... the longest MLB baseball game in terms of innings ever, and probably with rule changes the longest there will ever be. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Airship's flyby

That's probably the chunkiest infobox I've ever seen. Would suggest narrowing it a bit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The line score takes up the space it does. If there's any way to narrow it, I'm all in favor of it, but the only way I can see is eliminating the line score, and we might as well get rid of the infobox then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to set an image size. The box with the giant image is taking up my column in New Vector -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is silly big. At my standard settings the first line of the text is "On Saturday, May 1,". On my phone, where the cartoon is little more than a blur, the first line of text is "On Saturday,"; the second is "May 1, 1920," This is not satisfactory. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Experimenting, setting upright to 1.4 gives a legible cartoon on my - largish - monitor with a sensible strip of text; and a result on my phone where the cartoon title is legible - so no difference - and the strip of text is at least not laughable. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• The plaque image is displacing the following table

• Cadore image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are done. Thank you for the image review. Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Harrias – abandoned

Interesting article, putting down a marker to review soon. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• The infobox image is far too big, and cramps the text in the lead. Somewhere around 450px would match the width of the score.
• The abbreviations "BKN" and "BSN" are used in a few places, but never explained. Recommend including them in the opening sentence of the lead: "On Saturday, May 1, 1920, the Brooklyn Dodgers (BKN) and the Boston Braves (BSN) played.."

I've struck the infobox and eliminated the abbreviations, which are not official in any case.

• "..saw rainy weather, and it was unclear whether the game would be played, but the weather cleared.." The repetition of "weather", "whether" and "weather" makes this sentence slightly awkward; try to rephrase.
• Wikilink "run" in the lead.
• "Brooklyn scored a run in the fifth inning, and Boston in the sixth; thereafter the pitchers became increasingly dominant. As the game lengthened past eighteen innings, the small crowd at Braves Field cheered both pitchers. The last twenty innings were scoreless, and with darkness starting to fall, the umpires called a halt after the 26th inning.." Spell out "twenty-sixth" to make the format of the other comparable numbers.
• I know AmEng likes false titles, but try to avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE they create: "manager Wilbert Robinson", "Pitcher Leon Cadore", "spitballer Burleigh Grimes" etc.
• Explain what "had a 15–14 record" means.

Link added.

• "Oeschger was later in 1919 traded.." This sounds a bit odd; maybe switch it around to "Later in 1919, Oeschger was traded.."
• "Earlier in the 1920 season, Oeschger and Cadore had opposed each other in Brooklyn, with Cadore the winning pitcher over Oeschger, 1–0 in 11 innings." I'd move this to the end of the next paragraph.
• "Both Oeschger were 28-year-old right-handers." Should this be "Both Oeschger and Cadore were 28-year-old right-handers."?
• "..good for second place out of eight.." "good for" sounds like journalese. Maybe "placing them".
• "..half a game behind.." What does this mean?
• "Boston sported a 4–5 record.." Again, not sure this use of "sport" fits in an encyclopaedia.
• "..31⁄2 games.." As you used the written form previously ("half a game"), this should also be written out.

As a general rule, baseball games behind are more commonly expressed as numerals, perhaps deriving from their place in statistical tables such as standings. I've never seen, in text, 1⁄2 games behind, though. It seems to be an exception.

• "..for the 3:00 game.." Specify am or pm (same in the infobox, now I notice.)
• "..be the starting pitcher, if the game was played." No need for this comma.
• "Thus, only 4,000 or so fans came to Braves Field to view the contest." Switch "came" to "went".
• "In the top of the first inning.." What does this mean?

This is explained in glossary of baseball terms, which is now included as a whatnot to cover minor baseball terms that do not have their own articles.

• "..reached on a throwing error.." What does this mean?

Linked.

• "..when Zack Wheat popped to second base." What does this mean?

Rephrased and linked.

• "In the bottom of the first.." What does this mean?

See "top".

• "..walked to lead off the inning.." What does this mean?

Linked to base on balls

• "Cadore retired the next three batters.." What does this mean?

Retired is now linked to out (baseball).

• The article contradicts itself: "..and it almost entirely stopped by the end of the first inning.." vs "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly.."

I don't see this as a contradiction. There's no way to prove there was never another raindrop after the first inning.

• "..was retired in order.." What does this mean?

Again, retired means basically what it does in cricket. In order is defined in the glossary.

• "..side without a run scoring." Grammatically, I think this would sound better as "..side without a run being scored." But honestly, this section is so jargon intense that I'm really struggling.

• I think there is an extent to which any sports articles requires jargon.

• "Wheat walked with one out.." What does this mean?

• Linked.

• "..hit a ground ball.." What's a ground ball?

• Linked.

I'm going to stop here for the moment. I'm really struggling with the jargon. As someone who writes cricket articles, I appreciate the difficulty, but this section could really do with simplifying if possible. If not, all jargon at least needs to be wikilinked on first use. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think now you'll find that all terms with articles are linked, and a glossary is supplied for the puzzled reader to look up the terms. I don't think it can be written without jargon because the ninety and nine of the hundred readers who read this article are going to know something about baseball or they would not be looking for the longest game.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Harrias, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

More

• "..as there was as yet no artificial illumination of baseball fields." This sounds awkward; maybe something simpler like "..as the field had no artificial lighting."

No MLB field had such illumination so I'd rather phrase it broadly.

(Pulled down from above.) I take your point, but the current phrasing remains awkward. How about "..as baseball fields did not yet have artificial lighting." (It's mostly the "as there was as" which is awkward.)

OK

• "Called to bat, Stengel received mixed boos and cheers from the Brooklyn crowd as a former Dodger, and doffed his cap, whereupon the bird flew away to great laughter from the crowd." I found this a bit difficult to read first time. I think removing the comma after "Dodger" would help.

OK

• "The Dodgers had won eight of their first twelve games going into May 1, and was in second place.." "was" should be "were" here for consistency.

OK

• "..reached on a throwing error.." What does this mean?

Linked.

(Pulled down from above.) I still don't know what "reached" means in this context.

I've directly linked from the glossary.

• The article contradicts itself: "..and it almost entirely stopped by the end of the first inning.." vs "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly.."

I don't see this as a contradiction. There's no way to prove there was never another raindrop after the first inning.

(Pulled down from above.) I disagree. One says it almost entirely stopped (ie, it didn't stop), while the other says it stopped. That's a contradiction.

I cut the one that is not in the game description.

• General repetition: Five of the six paragraphs of the First nine innings section start "In the top of the xth...", while the other starts "In the xth..". Try and add some variation.

OK, done.

• "In the top of the first inning.." What does this mean?

This is explained in glossary of baseball terms, which is now included as a whatnot to cover minor baseball terms that do not have their own articles.

• "..was retired in order.." What does this mean?

Again, retired means basically what it does in cricket. In order is defined in the glossary.

(Pulled down from above for both of these.) An article should not require a reader to have thoroughly read a glossary on the subject to understand. If there is something in the glossary to help understanding, then link to it. Unless I'm missing it, the article does not currently link to the glossary at all.

1. I've linked to the glossary for the baseball terms you question and as many others as I can find.

• "Cadore, though, retired the side without a run scoring." This might be an AmEng/BrEng thing, but to me this should be "..without a run being scored."

1. It feels the same to me either way but I've taken your language.

• "Cadore's hit could have been a double play had not Oeschger bobbled it.." Bobbled?

1. I'm not sure that term is unique to baseball or even sport but I've linked to "muff' in the glossary.

• "..hit a fly ball to shallow left field that dropped, allowing Krueger to score." I don't follow what is happening here.

1. Rephrased somewhat.

• "The Brooklyn run scored on what Oeschger remembered as a broken-bat single." Feels like this is missing "was" after "run".

1. The shorter version feels slightly more natural but I'll accept your language.

• "..right fielder Walton Cruise tripled for Boston against the Braves Field scoreboard in left field with one out." I don't understand the relevance of the scoreboard in this description.

It denotes that the ball traveled to the scoreboard in left field. The would make it quite a long hit. It's useful to put in some description where we can other than simply mentioning hit or out, and this is an important point of the game. Similarly we mention the broken-bat (now linked) nature of the Brooklyn run-scoring hit.

• "..advanced to second on a Cruise sacrifice but, and went to third on a groundout by Holke." Something not quite right there I think.

Yes, fixed.

Reviewed to end of First nine innings, will continue. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Note to the @FAC coordinators: ; I've abandoned this review as I just can't wade through the jargon well enough to review it suitably. As Wehwalt suggests, there may well be no realistic way of avoiding it, so I don't intend to oppose, but I don't think I'm in a position to provide an effective review of this article. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. I do not think it possible to write an article on a sporting event without using the sport's jargon. For guidance, I looked at the FA 1988 Football League Second Division play-off final, for which you were the successful nominator. I do not question its quality, I simply note the use of jargon, in fact often less linked than in the present article. For example (citations excluded in all cases, but links included), "but the Chelsea goalkeeper, Kevin Hitchcock managed to get his left palm to the attempted chip. Nevin then created an opportunity for Chelsea, crossing the ball to Dixon, who missed the goal with his header." Never is there an explanation or link to what a chip is, or an opportunity, or crossing, or header. Or a goalkeeper, or "goal" in its meaning as in an area on the pitch. Oh, I rather like this passage: "Chelsea dominated play early on; within 90 seconds of kick-off, Nevin had a shot at goal which Pears "brilliantly" deflected onto the post, according to White. Middlesbrough's best chance of the match came a few minutes later, when a cross-cum-shot from Cooper rebounded off the post to Slaven. From 5 yards (5 m), his headed shot went over the bar." Nowhere is there an explanation or link to tell the putative novice reader what a kick-off is, or what shot at goal is, or a post, or a bar, and certainly not a cross-cum-shot. (I wondered at that myself, and do follow English football in a desultory sort of way, and have been to two play-off finals myself). I could go on, or even pass to cricket (I'm sure I could find ample there) but I think my point is made.

I say again, my point is not to denigrate your writing in any way, and in my view you are one of the best writers we have. But an article such as these two are not intended to give basic information on the rules of the sport to the reader. While they should be adequately linked, they exist to explain exceptional matches (such as Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979) to individuals already versed in the sport. While they should explain the basics (such as the background and aftermath) in language that is clear to anyone, ultimately discussion of sport uses the language of sport. As your articles show, and in my view both your articles and this one meet the standards I have discussed. (though I might link cross-cum-shot) :).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by RoySmith

I probably won't do a full review, but here's a few random comments:

• Per WP:TITLEDAB, I suggest moving this to Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1

Brooklyn and Boston played to a 1-1 tie on September 20, 1905 in the second game of a doubleheader (8 innings), on April 24, 1907 (13 innings), and possibly other times as well. Thus, that title would not completely disambiguate.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have articles about those games?

No, they aren't notable games as far as I am aware. But how does the reader know that?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The general rule is not to disambiguate in the title unless you have to, not because you might have to at some point in the future if other articles get written. TITLEDAB says, "... already used for other articles". RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside FAs such as Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977) (there is no other similarly-titled Coventry City article), I'd state that the (26 innings) is not a disambiguating parenthetical, but part of the scoreline, as baseball games that are decided in other than nine innings very often carry such a parenthetical. It also, like the year in the soccer article above, provides a clue to the searching reader (in our search box) that they have found what they are looking for. Simply stating the score without the number of innings does not tell the reader that they've found what they very likely are looking for, the longest MLB game ever. Unlike many other articles on individual baseball games, this does not have a shorthand nickname like, say, the Pine Tar Game. TITLEDAB says, "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles."--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• I was surprised that it was even possible for a baseball game to end in a tie. It took a bit of research to discover this used to be common, due to the lack of lighting at ballparks. I think this should at least be covered briefly.

I've added a sentence on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• There's many places in the Records set section where statements are implicitly as of 2023. While this is stated explicitly in the first sentence, it should be made explicit for all the other ones, in some way that isn't as ugly as plastering {{asof}} templates every other sentence.

Do you have some suggestions as to how? It would be as of 2024 now, effectively, as the regular season for baseball has concluded and postseason records will not change the regular season record book.--

Maybe start out the section with, "The May 1, 1920 game set a number of records which still stand As of 2023" and then start enumerating them? I would even make that one sentence a stand-alone paragraph to emphasize that it applies equally to everything that follows (even if that horrifies the FA regulars). RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added a sentence but kept it within the exiting structure of the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess...

Lead

• Delete "Saturday" in the first sentence. What day of the week it was isn't that important.
• "26 innings, the longest game in terms of innings..." -> "26 innings, the most..."
• Only link Braves Field the first time
• Delete "for their teams". Who else would they be pitching for?
• In the lead, it's "jointly hold the record", in the main body, "jointly hold the MLB records". Use either record (singular) or records (plural) in both places.

In the lead, we only mention one record. In the body, we list two: longest pitching appearance and longest complete game. These are distinct records.

• "May 1, 1920, saw rainy weather", don't repeat the date, or at least don't repeat the year. How about, "The day of the game" or "Game day"?
• "came to understand ..." in wiki voice is editorializing, and I can't find where it's stated in the main body.
• "no illumination of baseball fields." Of course there was. It just stopped working at sunset.
• "There were stories told" is stated as "A myth arose" in the main body. I'm not convinced those are fungible.

I think the sources would support both phrasings, but I've adjusted the lede a bit.

• "as many former major leaguers" It's not clear if "former" means "before 1920" or "before 2023".
• "the records ... were not threatened." Who said they weren't threatened? WP:OR?

No, the body says that the longest pitching appearance in the two 25-inning games was 91⁄3 innings, which is barely a third of what Oeschger and Cadone did. So no one came close to equalling their joint record.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

All done or responded to in this section.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• There's so much richness in the cartoon, let's not deprive our screen-reader users of it with just a stingy "Newspaper cartoon" for an alt text.

Added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Technically, that's a correct statement. I added a bit more which attempts to let a blind person enjoy more of the wonderful story depicted in the cartoon. And while I was there, I uploaded a better version of the image.

Background

• "Joe Oeschger, had won 15 games in 1917, but only four in 1919" ... and in 1918 didn't play because he was abducted by space aliens?

He probably would have preferred it to the poor record he posted for the Giants ... added.

• "Oeschger and Cadore had opposed each other in Brooklyn, with Cadore the winning pitcher over Oeschge" Drop "over Oeschger"; we know they opposed each other, no need to repeat that. Actually, no need to say "winning pitcher"; we already know what positions they both played.

The current phrasing makes it clear both pitched the entire game (or at least, until the final inning). The changes you suggest would not exclude the possibility of relief pitchers.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "and Cadore and his roommate" avoid repetition of "and"

All done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

First nine innings

• Throughout this entire section (and the rest of the article), you overuse "but". It's not just the word itself; it's repeition of the "A thing happened, but then something else happened" sentence structure that's repeated many times and makes for an awkward pattern.

I see your point, and will work to tone it down a bit, but it is to an extent unavoidable. The narration of a baseball game, with many discrete events, is necessarily going to be choppy, and as many of the innings took the pattern "So-and-so reached base, but then Cadore/Oeschger got out of the inning without a run scoring", it's hard to avoid. Cadore, for example, allowed baserunners in 13 of the first 14 innings, but only one scored.

"Although So-and-so reached base, Cadore/Oeschger got out of the inning without allowing him to score"

"In the first 14 innings, Caldor only kept the bases empty once; of the 27 (whatever) baserunners he allowed in that stretch, 26 were stranded"

• "At the end of the first inning, the rain stopped abruptly." This implies the game was started in the rain, which comes as a surprise. Maybe in the first short paragraph of The game, "... to view the contest, which started while it was still raining"?

The source doesn't definitively say that. Baseball can be played in the rain, as long as it isn't raining too hard, and there could have been intervals of rain during the first inning.

You've already got a source which covers that: 'It was drizzling when Umpire Barry McCormick called "Play Ball!"'. That begs the question of how drizzle stops abruptly, but that's not our problem.

• "which held up many fly balls" I picture a cold wind, holding a gun to a fly ball's head, demanding, "OK bub, give me your wallet!"

I've changed to "slowed". But I'm dubious it carries the same nuance to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "reached on a throwing error" reached what? There's a lot of baseball jargon in this article. Maybe that's OK given the subject matter, but this one seems a little much. Pity our poor readers who were forced to grow up on footy and cricket.

Rephrased slightly.

• "Oeschger doubled to center field" might be worth mentioning that in this era, pitchers actually knew how to use a bat.

The two pitchers were a combined 1 for 19, which isn't very good, nor unusual for pitchers.

• "from Mickey O'Neil, the catcher" -> "from catcher Mickey O'Neil"?
• "Walton Cruise tripled for Boston against the Braves Field scoreboard" I'm guessing that means the ball bounced off the scoreboard, but that's not clear. Was this a ground-rule triple? It might be interesting to say where the scoreboard was, i.e. behind left, center, right, whatever field?
• "tagged out at home plate" spelling out "home plate" instead of just "home" seems out of tone with the rest of the narrative.

Maybe, but I was trying to avoid being too jargony.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Stallings replaced the catcher, Krueger, with Rowdy Elliott" it's unclear if that happened in the 7th or the 8th.
• "The pinch hitter also singled." this is an awkward little sentence. How about "... Stalling sent in Lloyd Christenbury to pinch hit for O'Neil. Christenbury attempted a sacrifice, but Cadore's throw..."

Extra innings

• "Having pinch hit for his catcher, Stallings" I know what you're saying, but this sounds like Stallings did the hitting, as opposed to doing the managing. Maybe it's OK, but consider if it can be clarified.
• "In the top of the seventeenth, Brooklyn mounted its first threat of extra innings". They weren't threatening to send it into extra innings, they were already there. Maybe "... first threat of the extra innings?"

I've never heard "the extra innings" in baseball parlance. It's always been without the definite article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, but "threat of extra innings" is still confusing. When I read "threat of X", I take to to mean "X might happen". Threat of rain. Threat of banishment. Threat of being forced to listen to Justin Bieber. What you're trying to say is "threat of scoring a run during extra innings", and "threat of extra innings" doesn't say that to me.

I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "the game lasted three hours and fifty minutes" That's astoundingly fast for 26 innings by modern standards. Might be worth saying something about that.

It's fast, but nine innings was sometimes played in less than an hour pre-television.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Only three baseballs were used in the entire contest" again, might be worth comparing to modern play where three baseballs might not get you through a single at-bat.

It's exceptional, but a comparison with modern practice seems a bit OR to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Records set

• "Charlie Pick ... eleven at bats in a game without getting a hit", which implies others have had eleven at bats, but they got a hit?

Yes. In this game, Boeckel.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Holke's record of 42 putouts in a game by a first baseman" or for any other position, I would imagine?
• "43 total chances, also a MLB record for a first baseman", same comment

On both. I would agree, but I'm unable to find a site that confirms this. The records seem to be broken down by position. But given the first baseman gets the most putouts in most games unless you have Nolan Ryan on the mound, you are almost certainly correct.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Reaction and aftermath

• "The tie game was replayed as the second game of a doubleheader on June 25," Interesting, Yesterday I learned you could have ties. Today I learned they get replayed. Might be worth mentioning how this worked in those days.

Added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "In fact, both men pitched effectively if not brilliantly for several years after the game" Editorializing. Who said those things?

I've limited to they remained in MLB for several years after the game.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, probably worth mentioning somewhere if the pitchers were left or right handed. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth mentioning. They were both right-handers, but that really plays no part in the story. Stallings sometimes platooned his players, especially in 1914, but there's mention of him doing so or choosing a right handed pitcher for that reason. Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In spite of that, I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I've gotten to or responded to everything. I've cut down on the number of but constructions in the "The Game" sections, but I haven't tried to eliminate them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed all your further points, or at least discussed them, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I made a few more changes which you can find from the history. The only thing I still see as a problem is overuse of "but". I made a few changes on my own. There's more work to be done on this, which I'll leave to you. As a nit-pick, "overcast" has a specific meaning in meteorology and "dark clouds and mist" isn't quite it. Given this isn't a meteorology article it was probably OK, but since I was in there removing a "but", I fixed that too. I also wrote you a nice alt text for the infobox cartoon. RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A very thorough alt text. I've reduced the "but" constructions to two in the first nine innings and two in extra innings (not counting the quotation from Oeschger). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, the Miracle Braves, the World Series champions of 1914, when manager George Stallings led them from last place on the Fourth of July to sweeping the 1914 World Series." - this is a bit convoluted. I suggest "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, when manager George Stallings led the team dubbed the Miracle Braves from last place on the Fourth of July to sweeping the 1914 World Series."
• "Brooklyn center fielder led off Hi Myers the top of the second inning" - I think some of these words are in the wrong order
• "Cadore died in 1958 at age 66, having played most of his MLB career with the Dodgers, with brief stints with the Chicago White Sox and New York Giants. He compiled a lifetime record of 68–72, marrying the daughter of Brooklyn owner Charles H. Ebbets; he was a stockbroker," - the first part of the second sentence oddly combines two not-really-related things. I would re-arrange it to "Cadore died in 1958 at age 66, having played most of his MLB career with the Dodgers, with brief stints with the Chicago White Sox and New York Giants, compiling a lifetime record of 68–72. He married the daughter of Brooklyn owner Charles H. Ebbets; he was a stockbroker,"
• "Sportswriter Bert Randolph Sugar wrote, "but for Cadore and Oeschger" - I don't think the "but" is needed. That presumably relates to an earlier sentence in Sugar's article which isn't quoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done those things, though with a bit different text from what you suggested in a couple of cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Just two bits from me:

• I can just about follow the technical language of baseball in the first para of First nine innings (is that what it's like for Americans having to review cricket articles?), and my mind got stuck in a "who's on first" loop. If a complete novice comes along, I suspect they'll struggle. I don't think there's anything you can do about it really – all the technical terms are linked to explanatory articles, so I think that will have to do.
  The only real wrinkle was in the phrase "was left at first base" in which the linked "left" is a bit of an easter egg: maybe extend the link to cover "left at first base"?
• "pitchers mound": pitcher's mound? (or pitchers' mound?)

Interesting piece of history. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've made those changes. Yes, I feel the jargon is inevitable and fully understanding the description of the game will require some basic knowledge of baseball or willingness to patiently go through the links. As for cricket, I've seen enough of it over the years to have a rudimentary understanding of what I've seen on TV and very rarely in person but I probably lose a good deal of the nuance, so you're probably right. Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie

Spot for comments to follow Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• " Cadore was involved in a well-known stunt," Does the source establish the stunt as "well-known"? Feels hard to quantify, to me

I've added a source that describes it as "remembered as Casey's zaniest moment as a player" and "there were enough eyewitnesses on hand that day to assure that this was a wholly true story, not a fable. His signature moment had been achieved.".

• " Stengel later stated of Cadore, who was a roommate while both were with the Dodgers, "Wonderful person, wonderful pitcher with a brilliant mind."" what's the relevance of this sentence?

I think it's to establish the relationship of Stengel, a very well known baseball figure, with Cadore, who is less-known, also with a view of setting up the quotation from Stengel late in the article. To be blunt, outside of this one game, the only thing Cadore is really remembered for is his bit part in Stengel's sparrow stunt.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• "but he had won fourteen games in 1919," out of how many?

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• "on from their great success" maybe like "from their last great success" or "most recent"? Unless it really was and remained their only?

The Boston Braves won only the one World Series though they played in it in 1948.

• "The Boston Braves of 1920 were several years on from their great success, when manager George Stallings led the team dubbed the Miracle Braves from last place on the Fourth of July to a sweep of the 1914 World Series." Can you reorg or split this sentence up actually? I don't think it reads super easily, especially because you don't give the year of their "great success" until the very end of the sentence, and I might expect something like "George Stallings had led the team"

I don't think the had is necessary. Rephrased.

• Link Night_game#Baseball?

It already is, in the extra innings section.

• "Ties, brought on by adverse weather or the fall of darkness, were common in MLB in the time before night baseball." awkward phrasing here: ties are presumably still as common due to adverse weather as they were before night baseball?

No, because baseball rules now allow for suspended games and also can wait past the fall of darkness to resume a game.

• Something isn't working for me in the background. I think it's that things keep getting introduced in passing. For instance, "(that role fell to Burleigh Grimes)" is when Grimes is first mentioned, "they were well-regarded as the 1920 season began" is when we get a sense of the time the article is focused on (rather than earlier in the sentence), "The starting pitcher for the Braves on May 1, 1920" is when the date of the game is established (why not earlier), but we don't know why the date is significant until later, when "before the May 1 game," is mentioned. I think this might be helped if you have an introductory sentence that establishes the teams that were set to play on what date. Might just be me though, happy to be told this is silly.

Added a topic sentence. Grimes is mentioned three times in the article, the purpose is to establish him as a pitcher for Brooklyn.

• link Sunday baseball?

OK.

• Are all the baseball terms needed? I think there's a few that could be replaced with words that make sense to the ordinary reader (ie why use 'retired' instead of 'out', 'left' instead of 'stranded')? Most of them are necessary, just not all imo

"retired the side" is such common baseball parlance that not to use it would look odd. Left is the more formal term in my view as it is part of the statistic "left on base". It's the description of a baseball game and baseball terms must be used. There are ample links for those unfamiliar with baseball who for some reason try to puzzle through this description. I find other baseball articles about specific games to be similar in their use of terms, and those many we have about American football and soccer.

• Are the duplinks intentional?

There's one, I think, now, with "lead off" and "led off". I'm inclined to leave it.

• " one long hit that might win the game" What does "long hit" in this context mean?

I think, literally, a long hit, an extra base hit. We're being pretty faithful.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• "after Holke threw the ball back to him" necessary? How else would he have gotten the ball?

Another fielder might have thrown the ball. The source doesn't mention it, but it would be usual for the pitcher, Oeschger, to back up the play at first base.

• "has had the effect of greatly reducing" maybe just "has greatly reduced"

Fine.

• " as the advent of the relief pitcher made it highly unlikely" but according to our article on relief pitchers, they had been around since even before this game

Changed to "greater use" of the reliever.

• " According to Warren Corbett" maybe put a year for context here?

OK

• "James C. O'Leary of The Boston Globe" a date would be good for this?

I've made it clear this was the next day

• "but such matters were not a consideration in 1920" necessary? I think it can be assumed from the context to be the case

Yes, but I'm inclined to spell it out for the reader.

That's all for a first read-through, mostly minor points. As always, not wedded to all/any of the aboveEddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've responded or dealt with all of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eddie, did you want to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can support now. I went ahead and linked night baseball on first rather than second mention. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. I presume that www.sports-reference.com is not usergenerated? It looks like otherwise the sources are consistently formatted and seem to be reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference.com is probably what you mean. Although it includes a part that is user generated (the "bullpen"), all citations are to the main portion, that is not user generated, and that is widely relied upon by media organizations and others per our article on it, that contains stats for all players and games in Major League Baseball.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then that seems like a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.