Talk:2019 World Series/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Could you please provide a courtesy ping back, just to confirm that you are still editing and happy to work on this? A quick glance through doesn't reveal anything too major. I'll check over the sources first, and then proceed with a prose review. Harrias talk 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * – hi, just seeing your note here now. Yes, I am still active, and able to work on this. This weekend, I'll review and follow-up on the feedback made so far. Thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * – I'm making edits now, placing marks next to sections I've worked through, and adding some comments where applicable. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * – Please see the latest version of the article, as time permits. I went through your comments (which were helpful, thanks) and the recap of each game to make suggested edits, along with reducing some jargon and/or providing page links or explanatory notes. I believe we can expect an article on the World Series to contain some baseball-specific language, akin to a recap of The Ashes containing some cricket-specific language, etc. That said, we should avoid sports jargon becoming so thick that it's a barrier to readers; there's a balance to be found, hopefully. If you can take a look and let me know what you still see as areas of concern, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * – Sourcing updated to replace Twitter and YouTube references. Will await your feedback. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this. Somehow I had missed your pings. I will start going through it again in the next day or so. Harrias  talk 20:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * Please replace the Twitter and YouTube references where possible. Most look pretty replaceable. Otherwise their are no major concerns from the sources, I'll provide a more detailed review later.


 * Lead
 * Use endashes rather than hyphens for the teams' records (ie, (107–55) rather than (107-55)). Also provide an explanation for what these mean; this notation method is not that common outside of North American sports.
 * "was the 3rd World Series" Write out "third".
 * "..was decided by the regular season record of the two pennant winners" Hyphenate "regular-season", as in the previous sentence. Also, what is a pennant winner? Presumably the two teams, but no explanation is given.


 * Background
 * "..Milwaukee Brewers - who began as the Seattle Pilots - and San.." Endashes, not hyphens, please.
 * "The World Series appearance also means.." Replace "The" with "Their".
 * "..yet to play in a Fall Classic is.." Is a Fall Classic the same as a World Series? This needs explaining, as at the moment, "Fall Classic" has been mentioned with no explanation.
 * "Prior to this year's Series, the Astros and Nationals had never played each other in a postseason series before, .." It's optional, but for clarity in future years, it might be better to phrase this as "Prior to the 2019 Series.." Also, remove "before", which is redundant.
 * "..share a Spring training site.." No need to capitalise "spring".
 * "..four games behind the Atlanta Braves.." What does this mean? They played four less games? Won four less games? Something else?
 * "..the Nationals swept the.." An explanation or wikilink for "swept" is necessary here.
 * "..for a Washington, D.C., team since 1933." To avoid the slightly awkward construction here, rephrase as "..for team from Washington D.C. since 1933."
 * "..franchise that began play the year following year, 1961, and that team.." Something went wrong here!
 * Expand the Texas Rangers linked to cover the whole phrase "Texas as the Rangers".
 * Expand the Houston Astros section to be a similar length to the Washington Nationals section, to maintain balance.


 * Summary
 * The table needs to include row and column scopes to meet MOS:ACCESS, as described in MOS:DTT. Some changes will need to be made to the template for this to work. Sadly, this MOS isn't a GA requirement, so this is optional. ❌
 * In a sortable table, items need to be linked on each occurrence, not just the first time. ✅


 * Game 1
 * It isn't necessary to link Minute Maid Park or Houston in this table. ✅
 * What do the number column headers mean? This isn't clear to a lay person, and requires explanation.
 * Is all the information in the table referenced to the boxscore? Where does 7:08 come from, the boxscore lists 7:10 as the first pitch?
 * "In the bottom of the first.." What is "the bottom of the first"?
 * "..hit a two-run double with two outs.." What is a "two-run double with two outs"?
 * "..the top of the second.." What is "the top of the second"?
 * "..drove in a run.." What does this mean?
 * Is a "reliever" a relief pitcher? Again, this could do with explaining.
 * "The Astros loaded the bases.." Explain "loaded the bases".
 * Provide a link for "walks". ✅
 * "..single off of Daniel Hudson.." "off of" is bad grammar; "off" will suffice. ✅
 * What is a "pinch-hitter"?
 * What is a "fly ball"?
 * What does "retired the side in order" mean?
 * What does "lined out" mean?

Okay, I'm going to take a break there. The article has a lot of jargon, and is pretty inaccessible to a layperson. I can work some of it out from my meagre knowledge of baseball, and my much better knowledge of cricket, and I'm still finding it hard going. Harrias talk 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Game 2
 * "Starting pitchers were Stephen.." Insert "The" at the start of the sentence, to avoid sounding like journalese. ✅
 * Again this is very jargon heavy. Even if more explanation were provided, via wikilinks or notes, I think parts of it are near incomprehensible to those not familiar with the sport. For example "..he was charged with four runs on seven hits while striking out six batters..".

I'm going to put this on hold for the moment, and ask that you work through the entire article to make it more readable to someone not familiar with baseball. Harrias talk 11:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the work you have put into this. While it is obviously still jargon heavy, I was able to understand it much better with the additional notes and links. I was expecting to have to add a lot more, but I'm actually happy this meets GA standards now. Ideally (and this is beyond the scope of GA) I would like the first paragraph of the Background section to be expanded to include more information on the Astros background: some detail is given about the Nationals, but not so much about the Astros. But as I say, this meets all the GA criteria now. Nice work. Harrias  talk 14:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)