Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 World Series/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:09, 8 April 2010.

2009 World Series

 * Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel this article is up to the FA snuff. It's been through a PR, a failed FAC, got listed as a GA, and here I am again. The previous FAC really just went stale, I was happy to respond to any comments people brought up. As per Yellow Monkey's request at the time a Series Preview section was added, and a section noting the scandal involving NY governor David Paterson and his attending this World Series has now been added to the aftermath section. I have used 1926 World Series and 2004 World Series (the current FA World Series articles) as general style guides. The only major current issue of contention is the inclusion of a "Quotes" section. I have reverted the addition of uncited quotes (and will continue to as uncited material). I personally do not feel a quotes section follows Wikipedia's style guidelines (whether cited or not), but would welcome input on this subject. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No dab links; external links working. Alt text is acceptable. You have one picture, that of Cliff Lee, with distracting dark and light bands; do you think that is acceptable in a featured article? Ucucha 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a question of accuracy of image versus quality of image. We also have this picture, much crisper and cleaner, but of Lee with the Indians. The image currently used unfortunately has the crowd's protective netting disrupting the image, but is of Lee actually with the Phillies. I'd be happy with either one. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is not to give a picture of the man at all. Not knowing much about baseball, I wouldn't know how to weigh the issues of accuracy and quality. But I am not sure whether the current image is of acceptable quality for a featured article, especially when better images shouldn't be that hard to get, as for a recent event like this. Ucucha 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is this. Cliff Lee was traded to the Phillies midway through last season and has left the team in this offseason. This leaves a brief window of 3-4 months worth of baseball where a potentially better image of Cliff Lee in a Phillies uniform could have been taken and released into a free license. Cliff Lee was far and away the central figure of Game 1 with a complete game nearly-shutout performance, if any player should have an image there it's him. If you don't think this image is of suitable quality for a featured work, do you think the alternative would be (assuming the caption included a note, as many of the images do, explaining when the photo was taken and thus why he's in a non-Phillies uniform)? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, since I am unsure how the different issues should be weighed in a sports context; I'll leave it for you and other reviewers to decide. Ucucha 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'll try to give a full review at some point, but some of the captions might be improved. Some of them are a bit too detailed. This is just from a spot check, so please go over the captions, particularly in the ones in the Series section, and see if anything can be shortened. Also, reference 15's publisher is AOL Sports, and you have both "MLB.com. Major League Baseball." and "MLB.com (Major League Baseball)." Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "U.S. flag during Opening Ceremony" – as I can't really see flag at the size the image is currently at, this might be better as "The opening ceremony for Game 3"
 * "Phillies second baseman Chase Utley, pictured during the 2007 spring training, hit another two home runs this game for a total of five in the Series, tying a record held by Reggie Jackson." is much too long. How about "Phillies second baseman Chase Utley, pictured during spring training in 2007, tied a record with five home runs in the series." or something similar. Also (very minor), Matsui's caption says "pictured here" while Utley's just says "pictured"
 * "The Yankees celebrate their 7–3 win against the Phillies and the franchise's 27th World Series championship." One would assume the reader knows the teams playing.
 * "New York Yankees ticker-tape parade at New York City Hall" you don't need to repeat the franchise's full name, and I'm not sure you even need "Yankees" at all.
 * Fixed all those you refer to here. I'll keep an eye out for possible caption shrinkages. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments - as I go through this article in the next few days, I will leave comments.
 * The lead seems to be composed of various trivia (e.g. 2nd Phillies/Yanks World Series, nicknames for series, latest start), rather than a summary of the article's contents. Most of the article's body gives context to each team's season, previews the series, and then gives a synopsis of each game. I think the lead needs to be rewritten to incorporate this information (see 2004 World Series for a good example). Remember, according to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article."
 * Grammar issue in the lead ("The Series was the only the third to end in a month other than October.")
 * Some prose concerns - see my edits
 * Wikilinking - some work needs to be done, as positions/baseball terms seem to be randomly linked within the first few sections (e.g. the Phillies' season summary doesn't link free agent, whereas the Yankees' summary does; some baseball positions are linked while others aren't). Remember, the first time a term is introduced in the body, it should be Wikilinked, and subsequent usages should not be linked (unless there is a good rationale for doing so).
 * The series preview section should probably discuss the bullpens briefly. There was some concern with the Yankees middle relievers' reliability, but Rivera was still thought to be a large advantage over Lidge.
 * Player names should be consistently written throughout the article. For example, Raúl Ibáñez is spelled with and without the accent marks/tildes throughout the article. Make sure that any names that use these marks are consistently used.
 * As far as I can see that one Raúl Ibáñez link you fixed was the only instance without the proper accents. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've went through (using a redirect-finding script) and got a few more. Mm40 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Use a non-breaking space for numbers that have labels or numbers that are made up of a numeral and prose (e.g. 25 million - place the non-breaking space between 25 and million).
 * You caught most of em, but I'll keep an eye out. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Inconsistent reference formatting - the ESPN.com references were cited using a mix of "cite web" and "cite news", and the Associated Press was given as the work (should be the author). In some cases, ESPN was given and in some cases it was ESPN.com, and in some cases they were the work while others they were the publisher. I've fixed all of the ESPN references to be consistent. Make sure that other sources are modified accordingly for consistency.
 * Will do, thanks for the careful copyediting job you're doing! Staxringold talkcontribs 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a little more context is needed about why the Yankees employed a 3-man rotation (e.g. no confidence in other starters, Joba's role was undefined). This was a major point of discussion during the series, and many sports writers criticized the Yankees for trying to win the World Series with a limited pitching staff. Maybe for each game, also mention how many days rest each Yankee starter was pitching on.
 * I think the days rest count would be a bit of a stretch, and I can't think of a source that would directly provide it. Beyond that, the discussion of the 3 man rotation requires sources I don't know of, and selecting which ones to use. Do we name the reason as a lack of confidence in other starters, Joba's undecided role, an attempt to get maximum innings out of the Yankees best arms, what? The strategy choice of using 3 men is something you can directly point to, the why is far more ethereal and will only ever really be known in Joe Girardi's head. If he ever releases a biography and discusses why he made the choice, that's one thing, but which journalists opinions should be included in trying to decipher why? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing the pitchers' rest is easy, and vital to understanding the predicament the Yankees faced in pitching their best starters on short rest - would they come back and pitch well or would they be tired and risk putting their team at a disadvantage? Each ESPN game summary says it - Game 4, Sabathia pitched on 3 days rest, Game 5, Burnett pitched on 3 days, and Game 6, Pettitte pitched on 3 days rest. Here's good sources about the criticism the Yankees received for pitching 3 starters, as well as a source for saying their 3 man rotation was a product of other unreliable starters that hadn't pitched often enough in the postseason. This source also goes into the 3-man rotation (and how Sabathia and Burnett thrived on 3-days rest), but it also goes into a few other reasons why the Phillies lost that aren't discussed (e.g. slumping hitters). There may not be definitive answers for any of these questions I'm raising, but many writers seemed to think they had the answers.
 * Ok, so only the rest for within the Series itself (Games 4-6), not rest from ALCS-WS (Games 1-3)? I guess that's doable with the sources you mention. I'll try to include this stuff later today (in class right now). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw your adds. For the most part, it looks good. I think in the series preview section where you mention Gene W's criticism of Girardi and his support for Gaudin in Game 6, you should mention why he felt that way - did he believe Gaudin was a better pitcher, or did he think the rest of the starters needed to be well-rested? (this) Right now, it sounds a little oversimplified. Also, I would still mention what Gene W or a few other writers thought the reason for Girardi's 3-man rotation was. It isn't a very common strategy in a 7-game series, so the speculated reason behind it is important to understand. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think it's worth mentioning a Philly paper printed an ad that prematurely congratulated the Phillies?
 * I didn't hear this story. Was it a notable paper? I'm just trying to think where it could be included (the Aftermath section, I assume). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the Philadelphia Inquirer and it was a Macy's ad that specifically printed the congratulations. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it's notable. Where would you put the sentence? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should go in the "Series overview" section before the game summaries? Or maybe it should go under "Aftermath" (which should probably then be renamed "Impact and aftermath"). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you take a shot at adding it? I just can't figure out where to place it where it won't sound like a weird stand-alone factoid. "The Philadelphia Inquirer accidentally printed a Macys advertisement congratulating the Phillies as World Champions following Game 4 where the Yankees took a 3-1 series lead." Staxringold talkcontribs 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added it - I don't think it sounds too trivial the way it is, but if you can review it first, that'd be great. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I wish FAC let you use caps for resolved stuff like FLC. This review is already complex enough I am going to go ahead and guarantee this nom will fail due to lack of reviewers for a 2nd time even though I'm continually happy to respond immediately to comments. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to add to this section as I have more to say. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewriting and ordering now. Moving the pertinent info from the lead to series preview and intro sections where it belongs, reformatting lead. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The rationale I used was linking each player freshly for each Game, so each summary could be read and understood independent of everything else. I will go through for some of the other linking issues, though. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense for the game summaries. It probably doesn't apply to the other areas of the article, though.Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the rationale for linking players name in each of the game summaries, but why the aftermath section, too? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Undone. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've worked with a proper article and not a list, do links in the lead "count" so to speak? For example, should I not link Mariano Rivera in the Yankees season summary because he's linked in the lead? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From my experience, links in the lead/infoboxes/templates do not count towards whether they should be linked in the body. As far as I know, everything should be linked in the body, even if linked elsewhere. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and your detailed copyediting. Adding info on the pens per your edit summary right now, I'd actually meant to do that but didn't when the last FAC went stale. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick comment – I don't want to look into this one in too much detail because of my Yankee-fan bias. However, I did find this sentence to be troublesome: "Later, the play would be called Johnny Damon's Mad Dash by various news outlets, a reference to Enos Slaughter's famous play in the 1946 World Series." There is only one reference for this statement, which says nothing about multiple outlets or the name being derived from the other play. For all we know, this could have only been used in this article; I have no way of knowing, but I don't recall any widespread use as a nickname at the time. The author doesn't sound like he's trying to create a nickname, either.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * sigh. This article is never gonna pass if nobody reviews the damn thing. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.