Talk:1962 National League tie-breaker series/GA1

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

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * I think the winning team is the most important part of the article. I'd say the winning team should be mentioned somewhere in the first couple of lines.
 * Added. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "The Dodgers and Giants finished the previous second and third in the NL with records of 89–65 and 85–69 respectively." There's a missing word, I presume season after previous.
 * Yupyup, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Game 1 Summary
 * Much of the first paragraph and all the second paragraph appear to be unsourced.


 * Game 2
 * Again large parts appear unreferenced, particularly paragraph 1 and parts of 3 and 4.


 * Game 3
 * As above, paragraphs two and three almost entirely unreferenced.
 * I've changed "tie the game at 4" to "tie the game at 4–4". Forgive me if this is incorrect terminology but it makes it appear clearer.
 * For all three of the game summaries, as with previous tie-breaker articles the sourcing for the general gameplay is in the general sources. I could make them into specific references but that would clash with past GANs on the subject and would have some pretty heavily used refs. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. Though the article should appear to be over-referenced (I don't actually think it would look over-reliant) on one or two specific sources, rather than appear unreferenced. At least the reader will know where to go for sources. Even if it's just one reference per paragraph. Brad78 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * General
 * Is this still the longest nine-inning game in MLB history?
 * Mentioned in the aftermath section. "Though Game 2 was the longest 9-inning game in MLB history at the time, the current record holder is a game played on August 18, 2006 where the New York Yankees beat the Boston Red Sox 14-11 in 4 hours and 45 minutes." Staxringold talkcontribs 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't believe I missed that. I specifically tried to find mention of it!! However, the source provided doesn't appear to actually state that that game is the current longest. Secondly, I think what may be more historically relevant, is the game which broke the '62 tie-breaker's record - it might well be the NYY-Red Sox game, but it could do with a source to state which game it was. Brad78 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with your second request is this is the kind of record that would get broken countless times, minute by minute, most likely. Dunno how to even go about finding a ref for that. As for that specific game, found an additional reference. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep looking on that 2nd request. I may be wrong in my assumption, according to ESPN the previous record before that current NYY/BOS game was (coincidentally) also between the Giants and Dodgers on October 5, 2001 and that game was only 9 minutes longer than Game 2 of the tie-breaker. I'm looking through Lexis Nexis for a source, the problem is a rather more important record was broken in the October 5 game between Dodgers and Giants, Barry Bonds hit home runs #71 and 72 so the game summaries I'm finding are fixated on that (I want to find one that mentions the game length in case it says what it beat so I can work backwards). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a complex piece of digging, but thanks to a handy note Brad found (we were chatting on talk pages to figure this out) I was able to backtrack back to the game. Adding now. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are links to disambig pages Eddie Fisher, Frank Howard, Jack Smith, Ken McMullen, Mike McCormick and Willie Davis.
 * Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Great prose. Just that suggestion about the lead.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I suspect that the apparent uncited sections use the same reference but on first glance it's not obvious
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

The prose is very good and the vast majority of the article is GA-quality. Just a few things above need sorting. Brad78 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Great work. Passed it. Brad78 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)