Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Toronto Blue Jays managers/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because The Rambling Man suggested it.

Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KV5 comments

edit

OK, so Maclean says that he has a source for Harry Warner's managing 12 games. That we can use, and if I can see the source, I will make a stub for him as well so that the list is not incomplete. The last thing I think we need to do in terms of the actual list is find out why Cookie Rojas managed three games in 2001.

On a personal note, I'd like to thank the author for being patient with us as reviewers. I know from experience what a grueling process FLC can be; it's one of the reasons I don't even begin to touch FAs. I think that if Maclean, K. Annoyomous24, myself, and other reviewers work together, we can finish this up and get this list to FL. I would suggest that since it's been through two failed noms in two weeks, we should wait about a month and make sure it's perfectly clean and shipshape before putting forth another nomination. If all goes as planned, I'll gladly come on as a co-nom, if it meets our standards. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source will corroborate the Blue Jays' official website for Cookie Rojas. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you enable your WP email (see user preferences) I can email you some news articles on Warner. I still haven't found anything about Rojas' stint yet. --maclean 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources for Cookie Rojas, Killervogel15. You can e-mial me those articles now, maclean. I would greatly appreciate it. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing Rojas coached May 25-27, 2001 games against the Red Sox. Why? Because on May 25, 2001, "manager Buck Martinez has taken a leave from the team for 3 games to attend his mother-in-law's funeral." per JAYS UPDATES.--Crzycheetah 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is confirmed by the Globe and Mail: May 25, May 28. maclean 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maclean25 comments

edit

I merged a more detailed introduction from my sandbox into the article. [1] Is this ok? --maclean 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure...looks long but sure... -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, should I erase 10 games from Hartsfield, make Warners, and put it on Warners or what? -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Which is a more reliable source: Baseball-Reference.com or toronto.bluejays.mlb.com? B-R.com has been accepted in previous FLs as reliable, but of the 14 managers the two sources differ on 8 of them. --maclean 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still don't accept all of these sports-reference.com sites. I always find too many errors when I research football or basketball-related lists. Now, I see they have errors on baseball, as well, but I am not surprised anymore. I strongly recommend not to use this site as a source and go with some alternative sources. The lead looks awesome, by the way.--Crzycheetah 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: Baseball Reference was thought of as the "alternative" source to official team histories. Over-reliance on official websites is a big no-no over at WP:FA, so where are we to go? Baseball-Cube, Baseball-Reference, Baseball America, Baseball Almanac... there are a lot of sites out there but to be honest, it's hard to know which ones agree. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a thread on the talk page to decide whether or not to use baseball-reference.com. Please eeply if you want to withdraw or not withdraw the reference. Thanks! -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the current lead can be in the new section titled history of managers or something similar and the old lead be brought back. It's really quite long for a lead, it's even longer than the table. The information is useful and nicely written, but I don't think it should be in the lead.--Crzycheetah 07:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? I prefer my intro better but I don't know about KV5. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 07:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for maclean, since he's the one who wrote the current lead.--Crzycheetah 07:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Do what you think is best. It is meant to provide meaning (or the story) to the list. Though I'd shy away from some of the more off-topic points in the original, like explaining the Expos, to keep it focused on Blue Jay Managers. --maclean 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
K.Annoy, could you create the new section and bring back the revious version of the lead? Then we can probably figure out what is needed and what's not.--Crzycheetah 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What section should I make? -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Overview or History section where most of the info from the current lead can go.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which article should I put it on? If you want me to put it on the Toronto Blue Jays article, I can't because I would mess up their format. Also, I revived the original lead with the first paragraph. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I'm back. K.Annoy, I think what he is saying is to make a section after the lead but before the list which is a history or an overview in addition to the lead (a la List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico). KV5Squawk boxFight on!
Crzycheetah already did. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]