Talk:1951 National League tie-breaker series/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Will review, comments to follow in the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As a general note, you might want to make sure you're not using overly technical language here. I'll try to point out specific examples as I get further down.
 * There are a few repeated wikilinks, might want to weed some of those out.
 * No dabs, but this looks dead.
 * Lone image looks fine.
 * I made some copyedits, feel free to object to any of them.
 * Spotchecked 3, 7, 21, and 31. No issues found.

Lead
 * I think you might want to add more about the outcomes of the games. Also, some of the second paragraph might be a bit trivial for the lead, you might want to move that into the body.
 * I'd move the third sentence to the second place, too.

Background
 * "The 1951 Major League Baseball season was projected to be a contest" Might want to avoid the passive here.

Game 1 summary
 * "In the bottom of the first, Carl Furillo grounded out Pee Wee Reese got the first hit of the game with a single." Something got mixed up here.
 * I feel like the Yankee scout's attendance might be a bit trivial here, no problem, but you might want to remove.
 * "Neither team managed a hit in the seventh inning, as both pitched retired the first three batters they faced." Something mixed up here.

Game 2 summary
 * "The Giants failing to get a hit in the bottom of the ninth to end the game." Fragment, also fused participle.
 * "After the game resumed, Labine scored on back-to-back singles by Reese and Snider, and the Giants came up to bat, failing to earn a hit as the score became 6–0 after six innings." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two.

Game 3 summary
 * "Newcombe set down the Giants in order in the bottom of the eighth" This is one example of something that might be confusing to non-baseball fans, is there a way to make it clearer?

Aftermath
 * The quote you have is good, but would it be possible to summarize more of the reception?
 * When did Prager publish that the Giants learned signals? And when did Branca give that quote to the Times?
 * I'd move the penultimate paragraph to the last place.
 * Is there a good way around the repetition of "gave him"?
 * I'd mention that the shot heard round the world became very famous/made its way into fiction/lore. No need to go into too much detail, but it might be nice to have a mention. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done except aftermath and wikilink-checking. Undecided on taking the Yankees scout piece on, I found it interesting but it seems like an obvious thing for them to do. Wizardman  02:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the fixes, I think this looks passable at this point--good work! It's a very thorough presentation of a fascinating event, and I'll pass it now. My only concern left is the second paragraph of the lead. It seems a bit trivial for the lead, and I'd prefer to see it moved to the body and cited. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll still be tweaking things here as I work on the Shot article, so what I didn't touched yet will likely be addressed at some point, or if not then it will at least be over there in much greater detail. Wizardman  17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)