Talk:Perfect game (baseball)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AaronY (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be reviewing this article. I plan on starting my review tonight, and finishing it tomorrow. AaronY (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am just wondering if there is a list of 27 batsmen games that were not perfect (double plays, caught stealing, etc.). Is it important enough to be included here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron

 * I'm going to give this a very thorough review, even though it probably could pass it as is. Think of it as sort of an extensive peer review.
 * I assume there was some logic behind the decision to have the article cover only major league games. Can someone explain the thought process that led to that decision?
 * "pitcher (or combination of pitchers) pitches" The word "pitch", or a variation of it, occurs here three times in six words. Suggest maybe "when one or more pitchers throw" or the like. Then you'd have to re-word that whole sentence though.
 * The phrase "everlasting image" in the first picture, is that in some way noteworthy? I know that its sourced, I've just never heard it before.
 * Can the citation technique used also be explained? Some people will cite one paragraph with the same repeated ref six times, and some will use just one per paragraph. Here we don't have any refs in the first paragraph of the history section. There are also some sentences in the history section which need citations, for instance when Ward is called "excellent", when specific statistics are discussed, etc. I assume from the extensive references listed, that sources for those statements are already present.
 * "The first two major league perfect games, and the only two of the premodern era, were thrown in 1880, five days apart. The two most recent perfect games were thrown May 9 and May 29, 2010, just 20 days apart." I'm not sure of the purpose of this sentence. I know that mentioning the dates of the first perfect game, and the most recent, are important, but its almost like you're getting at a point that's not there. Unless the point is, "isn't that neat?" Actually, when I first read it I said to myself, "So?"
 * The individual game articles could use expansion for FA. Tbh given all the book sources that were read, I would think that the game information was already studied. Interesting facts like how many days rest the pitchers were throwing on, how they were performing on the season, how many innings they had pitched on the year, what type of pitcher they were (sidearmer, flamethrower, knuckleballer, etc.), what caliber of pitcher, some selective quotes from the pitchers themselves (just the insightful stuff not the tired cliches most athletes regurgitate during interviews), etc. I guess you only listed facts that stood out as noteworthy or were particularly interesting? I personally would prefer some backdrop to the games, to some of the coincidences that are noted throughout. I know the coincidences tie things together though.
 * The footnotes have some colloquialisms like "perfecto", "debunks the tale", etc. Also, they seem to list every time an error is spotted in one of the sources. I'm about 40% of the way through the research portion of a long term project I'm working on here (and have already written over twice what should have been my limit, lol), where if I listed every time the sources conflicted or one was found to have errors, I would need to start a daughter article. Keeping a list is a smart idea of course, I just think it should be kept offline or in user space in case someone questions the decision making process when it comes to using certain references. Or maybe in the comments page for the article? It doesn't really bother me that much, it's just that everybody comes across conflicting data when they do extensive research.
 * I see "perfecto" in the body too. For me that's so quaint that I probably wouldn't even use it in informal conversation. People are not a fan of descriptive terms like "fantastic" either at FAC.
 * The writing here is better than my own, so I'm not going to waste too much time criticizing it. There's some excessive adverbs for my taste, and I don't like this:"Ruth, who had already been shouting at umpire Brick Owens about the quality of his calls, became even angrier and, in short order, was ejected" I would excise that somehow, maybe say he became "even more abusive" instead of "even angrier". I don't have the source, so I don't know the particulars.
 * "Haddix and the Pirates had lost the game 1–0; despite their 12 hits in the game, they could not bring a run home." When you say that they lost 1–0, it's redundant to say they didn't score a run, and I don't think the semicolon solves that redundancy for me.
 * I might just pipe the Gallaraga main article link into the text of that paragraph somewhere, rather than leave it hovering over there.
 * All the almost perfect games are more fun to read about than the actual perfect games, whether that's because they contain more detail or because the almost-perfects are just more interesting, I don't know. Probably the latter.
 * Okay, the main thing is the referencing as there are several sections which just lack inline citations, and I'm not sure why, given the research that obviously went into this article. If that's explained/fixed I'll pass this article, the other stuff you can just consider food for thought or general feedback as none of it will hold this article from GA status. AaronY (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give this article five more days. Contact if there's any reason that's not long enough. AaronY (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm failing this article. I didn't realize the circumstances of this article's nomination. By that I mean that this is Dan's article for the most part. He knows how to write FAs, so this was kind of a waste of my time. AaronY (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)