Talk:The Double (Seattle Mariners)/GA1

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

Greetings. I'm a lifelong Seattle Mariners fan, and this hit is one of the major reasons why. I was nine years old when the M's first made it to the ALCS; this is one of my earliest distinct memories. I was there when Griffey came back to Seattle in 2007, and when they aired this play at the end of a montage of his highlights with the club, it brought a tear to my eye. Shortly, I will review this article to see if it fulfills the GA criteria. I'll be doing this because I'll be smiling the whole time reading about a big moment in my life, and to exercise my neutrality as a Wikipedian. It should be an interesting experience on both fronts. Nosleep break my slumber 10:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I find the title a bit awkward. I have never heard the play referred to simply as "The Double," and there is incidence on Wikipedia of unwieldy, descriptive titles being used (Eli Manning pass to David Tyree, for example). "The Double" does seem to be supported by the references, but the parenthetical qualifier also bugs me a little. It's not particularly specific to someone who doesn't already know what the article is about. But frankly, there may not be an article title that is descriptive to a new reader and something that is a reasonable search term. I'm still thinking about this. Nosleep break my slumber 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the lead at all. A few points from WP:LEAD:


 * words before the boldfaced restatement of the article title should not be linked, if possible (surely Seattle Mariners and Major League Baseball can be linked elsewhere)


 * information given in the lead need only be cited if it's not cited elsewhere in the article and it's likely to be challenged (I like the references in the sentence that constitutes the third paragraph, but before then, it seems excessive). Five of the first six references are repeated later in the article, so I don't think they're needed in the lead.
 * Additional comment: The seventh, eighth, and ninth references relate to the hit as part of Edgar Martinez's legacy, which is not addressed at all in the article. I definitely think it should be. Nosleep  break my slumber 22:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * the lead should give relative emphasis to aspects covered in the article. As the section later in the article rightly indicates, Dave Niehaus' call of the play is almost as famous as the play itself, but Niehaus is not mentioned in the lead. As the lead also seems a bit short, this is a "two birds with one stone" situation.

The section on Niehaus calls the call "one of the hallmarks of his Hall of Fame career." This is somewhat misleading; recipients of the Ford C. Frick Award are not considered to be members of the Hall itself. The sentence could easily be rephrased as something like "one of the hallmarks of his storied career that included the Ford C. Frick Award, considered the highest honor in baseball broadcasting." Wordier, yes, but more accurate. A more concise version giving the same information (the Frick Award) would be fine. I would also consider moving the ref to the audio recording of the call to after its transcription, given that the transcription is what the audio clip references.

I'm not sure why the call from Brent Musberger is included. It's hardly remembered by anyone, perhaps as a function of ABC not having broadcasted baseball for some time (and even though it's the call I heard live thirteen and a half years ago, I never think of it) and I question its notability. This is not a case like Kirk Gibson's home run in the 1988 World Series, where the TV and radio call are both unambiguously notable. Furthermore, if it's to be included, the transcription needs to be cited. It could probably use some words on why it's notable, as well.

I would consider moving the image of Griffey smiling at the bottom of the dogpile to the top of the article. I won't fail the article if you decide to keep it where it is, but I think it's better to have an image in the lead when possible, and if Cora and Griffey are named in the lead, the image becomes relevant there. Excellent fair use rationale for that image; it greatly enhances the article and is, at least in this state, irreplaceable.

Further comments coming. Nosleep break my slumber 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Briefly, what makes Baseball-Reference.com a reliable source? The others are of unimpeachable reliability and seem to back the statements up well. Nosleep break my slumber 22:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

McDowell faced "the heart of the order" - is there some objective definition to what "the heart of the order" is? Cora-Griffey-Martinez was the 2-3-4 of the order. On the simplest level, "the heart of the order" would be taken to mean the 4-5-6, but I've also heard that term used to refer to the 3-4-5. I think this probably should be taken out and replaced with a different indication of what batters in which position in the order were due in the bottom of the 11th, but I'll refrain from making the change myself. Nosleep break my slumber 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to respond in the order of your comments:
 * As for the title, I don't know how widely the term "The Double" is used outside of Seattle, but I have heard it several times. I listed this at RM a while back, but there was no consensus to move. Perhaps a relisting would be in order, this time without a suggestion on the move target. I think Edgar Martinez 1995 American League Championship Series double is a bit awkward, but then again no one has objected to Kirk Gibson 1988 World Series home run, which I started. Perhaps it should stay where it is, and add new redirects such as The Double (Edgar Martinez), Edgar Martinez double, etc.
 * I think Edgar Martinez double is probably a good redirect, as it is a likely search term (and should be visible in the suggestions box if someone types in Edgar Martinez). Nosleep  break my slumber 23:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've discovered in previous GAN's that I'm not too great with leads. But I managed to pull it off at 1995 American League West tie-breaker game, so I'll give it another shot here.
 * I'll go ahead and re-word the Niehaus/HoF comment. I'm fully aware that a Frick Award recipient is not truly a member of the HoF (despite other broadcasters branding guys like Niehaus, Harry Kalas, Vin Scully, etc. as such), and I've even incorporated this point when editing the "Baseball Hall of Famers" sections of Seattle Mariners, San Diego Padres, and Los Angeles Dodgers.
 * I'm not sure why the Musberger call is included, either (I didn't add it). It's possible that viewing the play on MLB.com includes the ABC play-by-play audio. I'm not sure on that, as I think viewing that video requires payment or a subscription. I agree it's not as notable as the Niehaus call, and will remove it.
 * I consider Baseball-Reference a reliable source because it is a repository of statistics and factual information. I use it extensively for play-by-play information. If I find that the info I source to B-R can be sourced to a newspaper or other RS, I'll remove the B-R citations.
 * I don't think they necessarily need to be removed, I was just curious why it's considered a reliable source. And, certainly, for play by play it seems it is. Nosleep  break my slumber 00:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard "heart of the order" refer to any combination of batters that does not include #1 but includes #3 and/or #4. So in that regard, there is no objective definition of "heart of the order." I'll think of a better way to phrase it.
 * I'll think of some way to incorporate Edgar Martinez' legacy into the article.
 * KuyaBriBri Talk 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any reason the link to 1995 New York Yankees season in the see also section is doubly indented? Nosleep break my slumber 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review (see here for criteria)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance: After a few hiccups, this looks great
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: I'd like the Niehaus call to be cited. The link that was there was dead.  I'm so glad you found a link to the call itself and not just a transcription :)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research: With how many citations are present in a relatively short article, this is exemplary.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias: I believe it is. No superlatives are given that aren't backed up by reliable sources.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: A perfect fair-use image, accompanied by two free images.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: struck

I'm almost tempted to pass this right now, given that finding a source for the Niehaus call should be a trivial matter, but I can't in good conscience do that. Nosleep break my slumber 08:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pass. Congratulations on your fine efforts in improving this article to fit the GA criteria, especially in the last week or so when the article has been in GA purgatory. My oh my! If any editor feels this assessment to be in error, they may take it to good article reassessment. Keep up the good work. Nosleep break my slumber 03:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)