Talk:1959 National League tie-breaker series/GA1

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

Reviewer: I'll review this either today or early tomorrow. —WFC— 05:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of this review is focused on criteria 1, along with a couple of baseball-specific points. I have no concerns over criteria 3-6. Criteria 2 will almost certainly be fine, but at time of writing I haven't spot checked the references. I haven't forgotten the lead, but I find that the best way to review it properly is to leave it until after everything else has been sorted.

Background

 * Do you reckon there'd be value in putting the standings after 154 games alongside this section? Most of the work has already been done in 1959 Major League Baseball season, which I guess could be considered as an argument either way.
 * I kinda like that idea. However, do you know how to get the text to wrap around the Wikitable? Here's the edited version with the correct 154 game standings.
 * I've added it, in as close to the appropriate position as I could get. Off to follow the football (by radio due to traffic problems :, but will check everything else later. —WFC— 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "had a poor 1958 season" would better describe the Dodgers' year than "finished the 1958 season poorly". By the sounds of it, they weren't fantastic at the start either.
 * Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Techically, the September 26 game wasn't a no-hitter.
 * Anymore, it was at the time though. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Dodgers were 14-10 against the Braves overall for the season," I assumed that they'd have played 22 times before this play-off? If so, 12–10 after 154 games would probably be a more appropriate statistic for this point in the article. Apologies if I'm wrong. Also, an endash is needed.
 * BAH! Right you are. I was looking at B-Ref's overall season count as I always do for these articles, but forgot to remove the tie-breaker games. Also changes the 1 run fact. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that this isn't strictly a GA thing, but I always like to give as much feedback as I can in a review. You're right to put the subject towards the start of a sentence. But while bearing that rule of thumb in mind, take every opportunity to avoid starting a sentence with "The Giants", "The Dodgers, "The Braves" etc. For instance, "The Braves won the NL that year with a 92–62 record, on the other hand, and..." could become "By contrast, the Braves won the NL that year with a 92–62 record, and..." Same goes for paragraphs, although admittedly they're extremely hard. I guess the fourth paragraph could start "Both the Dodgers and Braves finished the regularly scheduled 154-game season with 86–68 records, ..."
 * Changed those 2. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Series

 * I'm not too familiar with box score formatting, so there may be a good reason not to. But could the two teams' home runs be put on the same line?
 * They certainly could be, but the last time I tried messing with the formatting for the box score template it got all wonky IIRC. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps swap the first two sentences of the first paragraph around? (last time I refer to the previous point, promise)
 * Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A few endashes are missing. The ones I spotted were 3-2, 5-4 and 6-5. Ctrl + F should pick 'em up.
 * I'll run the endash bot. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll return to this section tomorrow. On a first read, I struggled to find any further fault with the prose for the games. I found the second game particularly engaging.

Aftermath

 * While accurate in a technical sense (the World Series is an inter-league playoff), would the Dodgers' achievement have actually been considered "reaching the playoffs" in 1959?
 * Absolutely. The term would mean little since that was the only playoff, but sure. Plus nowadays it is absolutely considered making the playoffs retroactively. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Dodgers' faced": no apostrophe needed.
 * Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably worth mentioning in passing who Ernie Banks played for.
 * Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That'll do for today. I'll try to add to the series section tomorrow, and I'll do spot checks on the sources and have a look at the lead once the above is all sorted. It's mostly pretty minor stuff, and I look forward to promoting this article in the near future. Regards, —WFC— 08:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead and final points

 * The first paragraph of the lead is great. It introduces the subject very nicely, and is of an appropriate length.
 * At first sight I felt the summary for game one was too short (and that's part of the reason that I held off from reviewing the lead). I'd probably start it with "After a rain-delayed start, the Dodgers won Game 1..." simply to pad it out. Otherwise it was a low-scoring, tight, error-free game, so I agree that there's little more to say. But I don't think we get enough of a feel for the second, and that's largely down to chronology. Ideally it should go along the lines of: Braves leading from the first innings --> Dodgers coming back from three down in the ninth --> description of the winning run in the twelth --> Dodgers take the game and thus the series.
 * Fixed, broke G2 into 2 sentences. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the baseball statistics sentence belongs somewhere in paragraph one. Paragraph two should focus on the event, rounded off with the bit on the World Series.
 * That's where the sentence has been in the other articles. I don't feel like it makes sense to discuss what happens to the stats from the tie-breaker until there's a tie-breaker. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are six DABs.
 * I'll fix them right up. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Groundout is left as that isn't really a DAB and there's no better target I can find. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I read through the series section again. My conclusion was that I would struggle even to nit-pick it at FAC, and therefore that for the purposes of a GA review there is nothing to add. Once these final few issues are resolved I'll be very happy to pass this as a good article. Regards, —WFC— 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thankee. As an aside, if you have the time could you check out the 62 article? I ran that through FAC, eventually I'd like to try again but dunno what to change. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go, but probably not today as I intend to see how many reasonable start class or better biographies I can create in a day. I'm satisfied that this meets the criteria, and have therefore passed the article. Keep up the excellent work! —WFC— 23:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)