I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I enjoyed writing this article, and I hope you enjoy reading it! Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"featuring the St. Louis Cardinals against the New York Yankees. The best-of-seven series, which took place at Yankee Stadium and Sportsman's Park, resulted in the Cardinals defeating the Yankees four games to three." I would reword this so the bit about the teams is one sentence, the bit about the venues is another and the bit about the result is a third.
"Yankee Stadium was packed with 61,658 fans on 2 October to watch the inaugural game of the 1926 World Series. The thousands of fans who could not get tickets for the game went downtown to City Hall to watch the game's progress being charted on two large scoreboards." needs ref. Also why "packed" it appears again in game 3?
I believe Bole means that the photo doesn't have a fair-use rationale for this article. The rationale it has is for Gehrig's page. I noticed a couple public domain pictures of Gehrig in his article, so why not use one of them? Giants2008 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The announcer call in game 4 is a bit long, do we need all of it? It also doesn't say who the announcer was.
I could start it at "The Babe is waving that wand of his over the plate." Also, the announcer is unknown. Smelser writes that it's either Carlin or McNamee. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"They rebounded from their 1926 loss by winning the title in 1927 and 1928." poor wording. Also replace "their" with "this".
I think the Summary section should be at the bottom.
It's a convenience to readers who want to quickly access the scores of each game. I've seen this format in other World Series articles as well. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that what the infobox is for? Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the infobox does not have parameters to include data for all 1926 WS games. That's why a separate section is needed. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There is not rule that says you have to have an Aftermath and certainly not one about what it's "supposed" to cover. Buc (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Who said anything about a rule. I believe readers should be aware of what happened to the players and teams of the 1926 WS after the series. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is it has nothing to do with the 1926 World Series. Buc (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the "Babe Ruth and Johnny Sylvester" section for and why does it come after game 4?
It's famous 1926 World Series lore. It doesn't make sense to have it before the game, since I reveal Ruth's Game 4 heroics. It's appropriate to have this after Game 4, since this was when the story was first publicized. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Make it a sub-section and explain this then.
A sub-section of "Matchups"? I clarified why Johnny Sylvester story is important.
"Furthermore, he pitched a complete game" why "Furthermore"?
"13:30 in either Eastern or Central Standard Time, depending on the location of the game" I'm not sure what the rules are about how times should be written on here, but personally I would put 1:30 p.m. Also this sentence is kinda confusing, why not just say "local time"?
"Hornsby then grounded out to Koenig to end the inning. Gehrig, Lazzeri and Dugan all grounded out in the bottom of the seventh inning. In the top of the eighth, Bottomley launched a single into right field. Yankees manager Miller Huggins came out of the dugout and took Shocker out of the game, calling in Bob Shawkey from the bullpen to replace him. Shawkey struck out the first two batters he faced, and Bottomley was tagged out by Koenig from a throw from catcher Severeid, after attempting to steal second base. The Yankees could not produce any runs in their half of the inning." needs refs.
What makes Sports-Reference, Inc. and Retrosheet reliable sources?
For discussion of reliability for Retrosheet, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard. Sports-Reference falls under the same boat; it has been used as a reference for baseball statistics in a number of scholarly works and sports reports from a number of newspapers.
"the city could fittingly welcome the Cardinals" why fittingly?
Well, most people wouldn't skip out on work to see their team. The mayor ended the workday early so more people could welcome the team to St. Louis. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand that. But the sentence would still say that even without "fittingly" in there. Buc (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Could still improve it. For example, "After a 30 minute rain delay during the top half of the fourth inning, the Cardinals came to bat." could be split into two sentences. Buc (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If that's what you meant. Apon thinking about this again, it's not really POV but still poor wording. I also notice "the Reds" are not linked or called by there full name when they are first mentioned.
Someone added it while copyediting (the original wording wasn't too great, so we can't go back to that). "Close" is a bit ambiguous, so I'll go back to "heated". Reds is linked, by the way. See first sentence of the the section. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes I see now that the section's structure is a little odd. One par on the Cards, then three on the Yanks, then back to the Cards. Buc (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"in Cardinals team history." as oppose to some other history?
I added this because AndonicO had a question about it. I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, but I guess it's not for the baseball illiterate. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What did? Andonic ask? Buc (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
There is really no reason to have any of them save to one in the infobox since that's actually from 1926 World Series. I can understand having one or two images for the sake of it, an article with no images looks very dull, but not a whole bunch of them. This isn't really something that would stop it from becoming a FA since they are all free use (as far as I can tell) just something that would make it better. Buc (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok it all looks good now save so I'll give weak support. However one problem I still have is that reading it as a baseball fan I can follow it fine but I wonder how someone who knows nothing about game would cope. Basicly the same thing Karanacs said. Buc (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That's all for now. Buc (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still working on de-jargonization and I've asked Andonic—who's baseball illiterate—to take a look at the article. Hopefully, the text will be easier to understand in the near future. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments - This is the first article involving my beloved Yankees to reach FAC during my time as a reviewer, and it's a World Series they lost? Come on! :-( Seriously, here are question marks from my first look.
"under starting pitcher Herb Pennock" Under seems odd to me. Can another term be used instead?
It says both teams were confident heading into the series, but there is nothing on the Cardinals in this paragraph. Also, weren't the Yankees heavy favorites going into the Series? The underdog angle could be interesting.
I have some NYT articles regarding the WS odds. I'll look into it. I couldn't find a quote from any of the Cardinals regarding each team's confidence. In a previous version of the article, I mentioned that Hornsby expressed confidence that his team would win. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Watch out for jargon like bloop, loaded up the bases, bunt, and shot. As a sports fan this is difficult for me to catch, but FAs must be accessible to all.
I just noticed that Art Reinhart is an external jump in the Game 4 box score. Red links are not evil. If someone comes to this page and sees it, they can create an article themselves. That's how Wikipedia grows.
Game 7: The writing implies that Lazzeri's long fly ball didn't reach the stands. It did, but of course it went foul.
Another reviewer mentioned this earlier, but Aftermath could easily be expanded. The Yankees fielded the famous Murderers' Row team the following year, and the Cardinals became the dominant team in the National League for the next 20 years. There is much that can be written about this.
I see that Aftermath has been removed. I consider this a disappointment, as there was a lot that could have been written about the future success of the two teams. It was a short section, though.
Barry Levinson's book is listed in Further reading. This should be removed since it is used as a reference, per WP:CITE.
There were a couple other things I saw, but I can't remember them now. I also fixed a few things myself. If I had to vote on this one, I would be Neutral. It is well-referenced and fairly comprehensive, but the game recaps aren't compelling to me. There are some awkward passages at times. like these two from game 7: "Les Bell just barely made it to first base after shortstop Mark Koenig accidentally kicked the ball while trying to field it." Just barely? "and it appeared Haines had run into some problems." The bases were loaded and his finger was bleeding from a popped blister, so it goes without saying that he had "some problems". Perhaps this is from reading a lot of newspaper recaps, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I do wish you luck, as I always like to see sport-related articles succeed here. Giants2008 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For a good example of what I consider a quality game recap, see 2005 ACC Championship Game, a recently promoted FA. One more piece of advice I will give you is to try obtaining newspaper stories on the games, as well as those in The Sporting News or similar publications. Fresh information from these could be helpful. Giants2008 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so the replacement was created in 1920. When was it first published? The two are not the same and only the latter is the PD-US criterion. See also my comment at the Hornsby IfD. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Rogers Hornsby.jpg - what is the basis for the claim that the copyright holder released this into the public domain? As the copyright holder would be the original photographer, this does not appear likely to be the case. The source site (a hobby Tripod page) "assumes" PD with no reasoning therefor and implicit uncertainty. Nothing is PD without a reason; Wikipedia should not be representing images as being in the public domain without substantial and reasonable certainty (i.e. verification).ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 00:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
See . All the information comes from Charlton's Baseball Chronology, compiled by James Charlton and 50 other researchers. I would consider Charlton's work to be reliable. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The J. R. Richard FAC above also covers Baseball Library, I believe. Giants2008 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
See above. Brain cells are officially mush, sorry about that! It's now on my cheat sheet, so hopefully I'll not forget again! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 59 "Cass, George "Obscure Records part of the ..." is alcking a last access date
Overall awesome article - filled with jargon and POV though. Some comments:
” were treated like champions by fans and citizens alike.” – You can’t be sure they were “treated” like them.
I don't know about this; I only made that point because of the text in the previous clause. I do believe that's the wording used by Eig (2005), p. 76. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
” sedan priced at US$4,000 and paid…” – Can you give today’s cost (approximately)
Unlink dates that are not full dates, such as "back to 1923." and "by September 22, but", per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
Wrong link? And when was this change made to the MoS? At one point, it said to link years, then it said not to, later it said to link individual month-days, and now we're not supposed to? Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the link. Only years have to be unlinked, if they are not used with a month and day. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
All other images look good from a copyright standpoint, nice work. Kellyhi! 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Support just did a read through and I'm not seeing anything to cause concern. giggy(:O) 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Support, the prose is much improved and more accessible. --Laser brain(talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a for now. I didn't read past the lead because I got bogged down in prose issues. If the lead is representative of the rest of the text, it's rough. Why no peer review?
"This was the first World Series appearance for the Cardinals, and it resulted in the first of 10 World Series championships in team history and the first of five clashes these two teams would experience during the next 38 years." Not well-written. Clashes with what? Two things clash - much simpler than experience a clash.
"Game 1 featured a pitching duel that ended with a Yankees win under starting pitcher Herb Pennock." Duel with whom? Why not just: "After dueling with so-and-so, Yankees starting pitcher Herb Pennock led the team to a Game 1 victory." There is a lot of "game ended with", "series resulted in", and so on.
"In Game 4, Babe Ruth hit three home runs, a World Series record only equaled twice since: by Ruth in 1928 and Reggie Jackson in 1977." In the recaps for the first three games, you stated who won. Why not this one?
"The Yankees led the series 3–2, but Cardinals player-manager Rogers Hornsby chose Alexander as the starting pitcher in Game 6 and used him as a relief pitcher in Game 7." Why "but"? By using that word, you are suggesting that Hornsby chose Alexander despite the Yankees being ahead.. which doesn't make sense since Alexander won his other game.
"Game 7 went down to the wire as the Yankees entered the bottom of the ninth inning trailing 3–2." I don't know anything about baseball.. "bottom of the ninth inning"?
How about "entered the bottom of the ninth inning, their last chance to score in the game, trailing 3–2." Does that work? Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"Meusel swung and missed Alexander's pitch, and catcher Bob O'Farrell threw the ball to second baseman Rogers Hornsby ..." You just introduced Hornsby a few sentences ago - why restate his full name? --Laser brain(talk) 04:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
SupportComments and questions I think I should have stuck to the lead! That was a lot of detail for a non-sports person like myself! :) Here are my comments and questions.
I do not know anything about baseball, so when I read this article I was genuinely confused most of the time. It is very hard to follow games in this much detail if one does not know much about a sport. I have no idea if this problem can be remedied or if it should be, but let me give some examples from "Game 1". Let me know if these problems arose from ignorance or colloquial writing:
Billy Southworth advanced Douthit to third base with a slow grounder to Yankees' second baseman Tony Lazzeri. - What is a slow grounder vs. a grounder?
The difference is speed. A grounder is a ball hit straight to the ground. It just rolls on the grass. Some balls move really slow (low momentum), so they are termed "slow grounders". Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Cardinals' first baseman "Sunny Jim" Bottomley hit a bloop single - Is "bloop" a technical term?
The wikilinks do a good job of solving this problem - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be excessive detail regarding the last game of the series in the last paragraph of the lead and it is written in a colloquial, sportscaster style.
Is no one else bothered by this? If not, I will strike the concern. Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the 1926 World Series is most widely remembered for its dramatic conclusion. Given that this game is such a significant part of the subject, shouldn't it be covered in more detail in the lead? As far the sportscaster terms in that paragraph, I'll try to tone them down a bit. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation - that makes sense. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Laser brain above, that some of the writing can be smoothed out, but I should not attempt this as I am unfamiliar with the topic. Exs:
Meanwhile, in the National League, the Cardinals and the Reds continued to battle for first place in the league. - Why "meanwhile" (it sort sounds like "meanwhile, back at the ranch")?
I read through parts of the article again and they read more smoothly after the recent copyediting. Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I also thought there would be ancillary information regarding the players and the series - is this remembered as an important series? If so, why? When is it referred to? What other series is it compared to? Perhaps because I am not a baseball fan, I was looking for other sorts of information about sports culture at the time and thought perhaps there could be more said about this. Perhaps this information is just not available? Sorry to be so vague! Awadewit (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Each series is unique, so I doubt there were any strong similarities with other World Series games. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the availability of materials regarding sports culture during this era. It seems pretty tangential to the subject to be written about in this article. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Additional comments pursuant to Awadewit's comments: My examples above were fixed but after reading the entire article, I'm really concerned about its accessibility. I'm thinking of how lost I've been reading rugby FACs from time to time. We can expect some foreknowledge; if people are truly lost, they should go read baseball first. But, we can make an effort to explain/link basic concepts and stifle the sportscaster lingo. Some examples:
The concept of stealing is never linked or explained.. "... and Lazzeri then attempted to steal home plate." Zoinks! Why would he do that?
I don't know if "top" and "bottom" of an inning is jargon.. I'd like to get some other opinions. Plenty of people don't know specialized terms like "port" and "starboard". "Beginning" and "end" for the masses?
Other puzzlers: "grounder", "popped up", "bloop single" (no idea), "grounded the ball", "flipped the ball", "groundout", "flied out", and so on. To be safe, I'd get a fresh pair of eyes on this just to go on a jargon hunt. --Laser brain(talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments I've just given it a copyedit, and will do another pass for jargon. It's easy to add wikilinks, but adding in-text explanations without ruining the patter of play-by-plays will be a challenge (I'm already bothered by 'the eighth inning' rather than just 'the eighth'). Nish, can you turn blooper (baseball) blue, and link to it from the pitiful blooper (disambiguation)? I'll work on jargon. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
To start, wikilinked stolen base, inning, grounder, pop, and bloop. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit and dejargonization, Maralia. Since I've been around baseball practically my whole life, it's difficult for me to take the perspective of a person unfamiliar with sports. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Me too, honestly - it would have been tough, but Awadewit and Laser brain's lists helped clue me in to what people needed. I'll give it another readthrough today to see if I can smooth any more edges. Maralia (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm working through this now, but having a rough time. Would like to find a better section heading than "Background", and "led" or "led by" is used repetitively, need some variation there, and finding undefined jargon and terms still. Also, a lot of commas, I changed a couple to emdashes. Working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at my edit summaries; they are suggestions only (feel free to revert anything), but I'd like to see a bit more of this kind of tightening of the prose and defining of lingo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now, primarily on jargon. I copyedited the season summary and half of the Game 1 recap to try to use regular words rather than sports terminology and then got tired. I really think you need a non-baseball person to go through this more closely to reword some of the rest of it. I'm also not entirely happy with the organization.
I question the organization a bit. Why is the recap before the season summary (since the season happened before the world series)? I think I would combine the recap section with the Composite Box section as a Statistics section (or something like that) at the bottom of the article.
I really don't like that the section for each Game in the series starts with a fragment listing the date and place and then a stat box (that is not explained at all for people unfamiliar with baseball). The date/place should be covered in the prose, and I'd move the stat box lower in the section (or to a combined statistics section later). I checked other FAs on sports, and none seemed to begin a section this way.
Consider wikilinking "batting average" to the number itself, as the link in the word "hit" might be misinterpreted as an unnecessary link to a common word rather than a special usage. Alternately, consider changing the wording to "...who had a batting average of .400..."
I can remember when the Series games were played during the day, and there was always someone at school who smuggled in a transistor radio to catch the scores; this article has a similar feel to it. I can see how a neophyte would have a challenge with some of the specialist vocabulary, but with a few more wikilinks I think most of the key terms will be covered. Risker (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
SupportOppose for now, just some quibbles and concerns about jargon.
Lead - You mention that the Cards went on to win 10 series, but you don't mention however many the Yankees piled up?
Season summary - perhaps change the first two sentences of the first paragraph to "The Cardinals won the 1926 National League pennant with 89 wins and 65 loses, finishing two games ahead of the second place Cincinnati Reds."?
Sounds good! Baseball is so familiar to many U.S. readers that the jargon can be hard to spot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment – Is there a way to remove the picture-frame from the infobox and enter the image with a caption straight away, as in other infoboxes? The current effect of a frame within a frame looks strange and amateurish. Waltham, The Duke of 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, almost. It looks great in the article herein examined, and works well for the infoboxes with captions in general, but there is a problem with the articles without captions in the infoboxes. If you can fix that as well, then I'll say "well done". :-) Waltham, The Duke of 05:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)