Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 World Series/archive1

2004 World Series
Withdrawn
 * Nominator(s): BUC (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I first found this article in this form, and just thought it was very poor. So I've been working on it on and off over the last few mounths to give it a total re-write, remove piontless large amount of piontless trivia and added in refs where needed. After some feedback in the first PR I nominated it for GA status which it passed a few weeks ago. I think I've got enough feedback from other user now and most people I've asked seem to think it's ready to be nominated. BUC (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (I noted MLB.com, but there may be others) Note that non-Americans may not realize that MLB is Major League Baseball.
 * MLB is explained in the very first sentence of the article. I think all other abbreviations are spelled out the first time they are used. BUC (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.kffl.com/static/404.php deadlinks
 * Changed.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Images - I fail to see how File:MLBWS2004.png meets WP:NFCC#8, and thus FA criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the series' logo. BUC (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that, what I cant see is how it meets NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the logo for the subject of the article. Is that not enough? BUC (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm afraid I don't understand. The logo for the 2004 World Series can't be in the 2004 World Series article? BUC (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to understand perfectly, in order to be classified as a Featured article, it must meet the featured article criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that perfectly yes. But as to why this image can't be in the article, I don't understand. BUC (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose - inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to know what's wrong with it. BUC (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Including the logo of the series does not enhance the reader's knowledge of the World Series itself. Therefore because the image is non-free and doesn't show anything significant about the topic it doesn't qualify as a legitimate fair use claim.  black ngold29  19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It informs the reader of what the logo for the series looked like. I've tried to make this a bit more clear in the image page. BUC (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will also oppose, due to inappropriate non-free content. This article is not about the logo, it is about the Series. Seeing the logo does not enhance the reader's overall understanding of the actual Series.  black ngold29  15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What if I added in a section about the logo. BUC (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you would have difficulty finding sources for such a section, but I can't stop you. What exactly is so important about keeping the logo?  black ngold29  19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll look into it. The other thing I thought was just having the two team's logos instead. Or would that have the same problem? BUC (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Abstain - Us Yankees fans can't review anything involving the Red Sox objectively, especially not this. :-( For what's it's worth, if I wasn't so obviously biased I would be opposing this article on 1a grounds, as I don't think the prose of the article is at FA level. Here are a few examples; please get a copy-editor to help with the entire article. Without one, I don't believe this will pass.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone who could copy-edit it? BUC (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Check on the bottom of this page for a few possible candidates. Make sure to ask nicely! Personally, I would choose someone who is unfamiliar with baseball if possible, but that is the nominator's call.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "A home run by David Ortiz and a five-out win by Keith Foulke, helped the Red Sox win Game 1. I would hope a win helped the team win. See the repetitive phrasing? There should also be a comma after Ortiz. And wasn't it Mark Bellhorn's home run that won the game? That was one of the only memorable moments of the Series, for us "neutrals" at least.
 * Second paragraph of Red Sox season summary: The comma after Derek Jeter's name should be removed.
 * "In the ninth inning of Game 3, with the Red Sox leading by four, Vladimir Guerrero tied the game for the Angels with a grand slam, however David Ortiz won the series with a walk-off home run in the tenth." In addition to more punctuation issues, this has a noun plus -ing sentence structure that needs fixing.
 * Cardinals season summary: "win-loss record" needs an en dash.
 * Series: "Having won the All-Star Game, the AL had been awarded home-field advantage, which meant the Red Sox had the edge at Fenway Park." "had the edge" is unencyclopedic and a simplification. All home teams have some kind of advantage. I think this is meant to be about Boston's extra home game, so just write that.
 * Game recaps: Among the issues here are numerous short paragraphs that could be combined for better flow, and jargon, which I have trouble spotting, but is always a stumbling block for sports articles. I'm also worried about phrasing such as "disappointing performance" and "failed to take advantage".
 * I can't really do much if you're not specific, tried rewording those phrases? BUC (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why finding a copy-editor would be so helpful. If you don't know what to do, try following the example of 1926 World Series, a featured article. Notice how much longer the typical paragraph is in that article, and how it tries to explain some of the baseball jargon. Again, it's difficult for me to identify jargon because I'm a baseball fan. And I pointed out those sentences to discourage the overuse of language that some here may see as point of view.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are Baseball Almanac and Red Orbit reliable sources? Also, see if references 56 and 57 can be found on the Internet, and provide a link where avaliable.
 * You need to ask SNIyer12 about them as he added them. BUC (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For FAC purposes, it doesn't matter who added them; it's up to the nominator, or someone else who knows about the site, to establish reliability. See Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for more on how to prove sources reliable.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Several reference publishers are given as ESPN The Magazine, but are not magazine articles; instead, they are regular ESPN game recaps. Therefore, change the publishers for them to ESPN and remove the italics.
 * Formatting issue with the author in reference 46.
 * Why are no television ratings for the games given in the article? I would expect to see those in a comprehensive article on an important modern American sporting event. If a Taco Bell advertisement, deserves two sentences, why not Nielsen ratings?
 * Not sure where to find these. BUC (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try searching on Google News for stories. You wouldn't believe what can be found there.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked there but I'll look again just be sure. Just a couple of questions about how to enter it: Should it be in it's own section? and does it need to be in text form, a table or both? BUC (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuity: Add an extra cite for the quote in the third paragraph.
 * Doesn't #61 do that?BUC (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's always better to add an extra citation directly in front of quotes, as material can always be added later, making it unclear what reference is being used.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the TV ratings info belongs in the WP article. I found a source you can use, here's some quotes:
 * "The 2004 World Series had an average TV rating 23 percent higher than last year's Marlins-Yankees series and was the highest-rated World Series  since 1999"
 * "Over its four games, the Red Sox-Cardinals series, on Fox, averaged a 15.8 rating and 25 share."
 * "Wednesday night's clinching game was the highest-rated Game 4 on TV since 1995, with an 18.2 rating and a 28 share."
 * "Game 4's highest ratings came in the Boston market, where it had a 77 percent share of viewers, which was bigger than the New England Patriots got in the area for their Super Bowl victories this year and in 2002."
 * I think under fair use I can't post the full article, but those are the tidbits that should be useful. The citation information is: Series a hit in ratings, Philadelphia Inquirer, The. Friday, October 29, 2004. Author: Don Steinberg, Pages: D9
 * Hope that helps. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, searching all the quotes verifies the article exists on Google news: --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I can't use them unless you give my the links to where you fould those quotes. BUC (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhi I did... the google news link . It's a pay story but you can confirm the quotes are all in it by searching for them. I found the full story in Lexis Nexis which isn't publicly accessible... but it's the same one as on Google news. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok before I add this information in, I would like to know if it's better presented in the form of a table, text or both. BUC (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the amount of sourcing to MLB.com and the relative lack of Verducci/Sports Illustrated or any other sources. I think the article needs better research. For example, Sports Illustrated December 6, 2004; Time, November 8, 2004; Sports Illustrated, November 8, 2004; Sports Illustrated November 1, 2004; and how about books? This was a historic series; just recounting each game isn't sufficient to cover it. Sports Illustrated naming the Red Sox "Sportsmen of the Year" for 2004 isn't mentioned, for example. And not seeing the name Verducci anywhere in the sources isn't a good sign. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with MLB.com? BUC (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing, except that it's a primary source. The use of primary sources should be rationed carefully in our best work; here, MLB.com and team websites make up almost half the references. Sandy gave you some great magazine issues to look for in online archives, and I suggest that information from them be added in to complement the standard game coverage. Please be aware of the new FA criterion 1c, which demands "a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic." It's hard to say an article that relies mainly on game recaps and MLB.com stories meets that standard.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any copies of Sports Illustrated. So unless they can found on the internet, I can't really use them. I've however added in a paragraph about them winning Sportsman of the Year. BUC (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * December 6, 2004 issue of SI. November 8, 2004 issue of SI. November 1, 2004 issue of SI. November 8, 2004 issue of Time.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; pls check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay the feedback I've got will take a while to sort out and no onehas added anything major to this page in nearly a week. So I'm going to withdraw this. BUC (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)