This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Okay, I figured I'd review this. Its GA quality but I think it needs some work before its FA quality. Here are some comments/suggestions. Feel free to strike these out as you address them, if you don't agree with one don't strike it out, just leave a comment below it saying why:
Right off the bat I've never been a big fan of the years linked into the season, so I'd do away with that. If its a religion to you that's I just think its overlinking.
"The 1926 World Series was the championship series of Major League Baseball, featuring the St. Louis Cardinals vs. the New York Yankees." This sentence should mention 1926 again, "The 1926 World Series was the championship series of the 1926 Major League Baseball season, featuring the St. Louis Cardinals vs. the New York Yankees." or somehting like it. I know avoiding redundancy but it reads awkwardly otherwise.
I'm aware there's some debate about spelling out numbers less than ten in sports articles since many media outlets don't. But I always do unless thay're part of a series (Simms threw for 2,200 yards, 17 touchdowns, and 8 interceptions). Also what's there is inconsistent for instance the first para has 4 games to 3 then the first section has sixteen wins and twelve losses. Generally, WP:MOSNUM recommends spelling out everything under 10. Just be aware of that because people will most likely request you do that during FAC.
"The Babe Ruth-led Yankees had won their first World Series in 1923 in six games against the New York Giants, after attempts in the two previous years." I think this might be more direct if you just said, "after losing the two previous World Series."
"In Game Two, future Baseball Hall-of-Famer Grover Cleveland Alexander led the Cardinals to an easy defeat of the Yankees." I'm not sure future is necessary here. I would just say, "In Game Two, Hall of Famer Grover Cleveland Alexander led the Cardinals to an easy defeat of the Yankees." And I'm pretty sure Hall of Famer doesn't get hyphenated:
I deleted the HOF reference entirely, nearly every player named in the opening of the article is in the HOF, why note it for Alexander.Timpcrk87 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"The Cardinals got a complete game shutout performance from Jesse Haines in the third game of the series, which put St. Louis with a 2-1 advantage in the series." "Complete game shutout" seems redundant to me since its impossible for a pitcher to get a shutout unless he pitches the entire game. Could be "The Cardinals got a shutout performance from pitcher Jesse Haines in the third game of the series, which gave St. Louis a 2-1 advantage." adding pitcher informs the on-fan reader that the pitcher got the shutout and then maybe they won't feel the need to leave the article to understand what's going on. They can just say "OK the pitcher did very well." Also, notice how I eliminated a couple of redundant words in there, less words is almost always better.
"In Game Four, Babe Ruth had a three-home run game, a World Series record only equalled twice: by Ruth again in 1928, and by Reggie Jackson in 1977." There are some words that cna be eliminated in sentences like this try "In Game Four, Babe Ruth hit three-homes, a World Series record only equalled twice: by Ruth again in 1928, and Reggie Jackson in 1977.
"The Yankees were leading 3-2 after five games, but the Cardinals behind manager-player Rogers Hornsby put in Grover Cleveland Alexander as the starting pitcher in Game 6, and as the relief pitcher in Game Seven, both of which would result in Cardinal victories, and ultimately the series championship." This sentence is a little choppy, how about: "The Yankees led 3-2 in the series, but Cardinals' manager-player Rogers Hornsby used Grover Cleveland Alexander as the starting pitcher in Game 6, and as a relief pitcher in Game Seven. The Cardinal won both games, and the series championship."
There's a lot of use of "in the series". Obviously since we're talking about the 1926 World Series everything that happens, happens in the series so it's redundant to say that.
Full dates and days with a month and day should be wiki-linked see WP:DATE (October 2).
I see use of the "would+" construction, I used to do this until I got slammed for it on a FAC, instead of saying "would lose" just say "lost", instead of "would entrust" say "entrusted" etc. Unless you're describing a person's later accomplishments in the middle of a sentence describing an event that happened earlier. (e.g. "Reggie WHite, who would go on to a Hall of Fame career in the NFL, led the Vols defense during the season.")
"Hornsby threw to first base, but Gehrig beat the throw, and picked up his first World Series RBI after Combs scored." Really he did? How long after? One inning? Two innings? A week? Sorry, I'm just busting your chops. It should be "when Combs scored."
There's some sports lingo and other wording in there that might be considered informal and/or be incomprehensible to a non-fan. "Knocked in a run...", "Liner", "drew the first blood" (incidentally "the" doesn't belong in there), "strikeout victim", "the Yankees could only scrounge five hits ", "The Yankees led 10-4, and did not scrap up", "He then chugged home", "Hal Severeid made the easy grab.", "the Cardinals cracked through Pennock's tough pitching", "shortstop Mark Koenig booted the ball", "Lazzeri lashed the ball down", "and O'Farrell's gun to second base ", etc. The informal wording makes this read more like a sports page than an encyclopedia article. You could link some of these to help out perhaps; line drive is a necessary descriptive term. While you're at it, check out all terminology again to make sure its linked when it first appears, I think bunt isn't linked when it first appears and one or two others.
"Pennock pitched a beautiful complete game three-hitter, with four strikeouts against the Cardinals." Beautiful is a weasel word, if you want to keep it in and its in the source you could put it in quotations and attribute it. Maybe it could just be removed though, although I'm aware sometimes apt descriptive terms are necessary for non-fans who don't understand mere stats.
So the first game didn't sell out? How did game one draw 61,658 and the second draw 63,600? Makes me wonder if either was a sellout.
"As the Cardinals were receiving their star treatment from St. Louisans," This is a little clunky, I would just change it to "from the people of St. Louis" or something even better.
"By the morning of October 5, 1926, the sky was full of gray clouds, and it was chilly outside. However, the clouds cleared out by the time the game got underway." This seems trivial, unless there was some concern about the game being cancelled due to the weather or something.
"in a little bit over 180 innings of work." There's some extra words here, see here.
"The Cardinals were leading 3-0 on the Yankees by the end of the inning." --> "The Cardinals were leading the Yankees 3–0 by the end of the inning."
"Ruether was then replaced by Bob Shawkey, who closed out the inning by yielding two weak ground balls in the infield." --> "Ruether was then replaced by Bob Shawkey, who closed out the inning by yielding two weak infield groundouts."
I think in each time section you should be able to do away with inning half the time or so, say it the first time in each section then you can say "with two outs in the bottom of the ninth..." People will get the idea, and this will avoid some redundancy.
Combine these two sentences: "Hoyt had sixteen wins and twelve losses in the season. He pitched 218 innings and had a 3.85 ERA in 1926."
"Bob Meusel followed by drawing a walk, and was tagged out at home after a relay throw from a Lou Gehrig single to right field." This sentence needs work, it makes it seem like a Lou Gehrig single made a relay throw.
"The following inning, Gehrig started the Yankees by being called out on strikes." This is a little choppy, could be "Gehrig led off the inning with a strikout." or womething better
Are you sure the both words get capitalized in "Game One" and "Game Four" all the time?
Why did so few people show up for game seven?
I'm not sure if a 3–1 lead is "commanding" (game seven).
In the game seven section, a couple of sentences begin with "At this point," fairly close together which is redundant and makes for weak prose. Find a similar term or just eliminate it the second time, it appears unnecessary anyways.
I added two fact tags in the game seven section. One is for a direct quote and the other one is probably from the same source but I think it would be good to have citation right on the statement in mid-sentence since it's somewhat negative.
This could use a cite:"Alexander urged Hornsby that he would rather face Ruth, instead of intentionally walking him." Even if its cited in one of the citations in the surrounding, I would move the cite here or dupe it and out another one on this sentence.
Dashes are incorrect see WP:DASH, I'm pretty sure we don't use the double dash here (--) but instead use the one in the edit box (—).
Also, put a citation close to the fact that Ruth was thrown out by 10 feet, either right after the comma or at the end of the sentence.
Okay, that's it. Nice work, and good luck! Quadzilla99 07:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Levenson, Barry (2004). The Seventh Game: The 35 World Series That Have Gone the Distance. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. pp. 33–39. ISBN0-07-141271-9.
I do not understand why this entry should not be included under Further reading. Pages 33-39 deal specifically with this topic. Kingturtle (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that if a book is used as a reference, it can't be added to further reading, unless it provides some "significant usefulness beyond verification of the article". I would say it does, but I believe the rest of the book is too out of focus with this topic. This article covers the 1926 World Series, while the Levenson book covers 1926 (in only seven pages) and 34 other World Series championships. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony(talk) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering what the (III) in the "Series statistics" section is for. BUC (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
the notation came from retrosheet, where (I) represents its 1882–1892 years; (II) represents its 1902–1908 years; and (III), aka Busch Stadium I, represents its 1909–1966 years.--NullSpace (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)