Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baseball/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 promoted by Karanacs 18:32, 12 May 2009.

Baseball

 * Nominator(s): DCGeist (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page

Stable article on major sports topic. A former FA, the article has undergone sweeping changes (including the addition of comprehensive referencing) from the version that was demoted two years ago.—DCGeist (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment It would be great if this could be an FA. Two things I notice:
 * The notes section probably should be references.
 * The ISBNs for the books listed in Further reading should be listed. Mm40 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. And done.—DCGeist (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout; normally, I would address this myself, but it is extensive. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Addressed.—DCGeist (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * images licencing fine. images should be alternated left right to balance article per WP:MOSIMAGES, with the exception that the subject should be looking into the text. I have seen line drawings of baseball in England from the 1800s, these should be PD and might be nice to illustrate the history (if you can find them) Fasach Nua (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please reread WP:MOS. There is no directive that images "should be alternated left right to balance article". Our guideline simply states that "images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". Per the MOS, a design with all right-aligned images is no less preferable than a staggered design. In the case of this article, several bulleted narrative lists are employed—it is awkward to place images to the left of those, much more awkward than having a subject facing away from the text. Note also that there are several illustrated sections under third-level headers that are not long enough to accommodate a left-aligned image. As anything close to a full stagger is thus impractical in this case, right alignment has been chosen for consistency.


 * While the suggestion to locate an image for the Origins of baseball subsection is thoughtful, the presence of the HistBaseball nav template unfortunately precludes the inclusion of such an image, which would result in undesirable subsection overlap in an unacceptably large share of screen/browser combinations.—DCGeist (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have staggered some of the images, as indeed this article was illustration-heavy on the right-side. I have respected the lists and third-level headers. A full stagger is not necessary, but some variation breaks up the tedium. I have also de-sized all of the images per WP:MOS (except for the diagram). Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment
 * I think there should be something about Baseball books and films. BUC (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the four current featured articles that, like this one, are general surveys of a present-day sport or pastime (aikido, association football, chess, and gliding). None of them feature the sort of coverage of books and films that you suggest (while I don't know how much popular culture involves aikido or gliding, certainly many books and films do involve soccer and chess). It's my sense that given considerations both of length and of focus, such coverage of popular culture is not generally seen as suitable for these general sports articles. Let's see if anyone else also believes that the article should be expanded in this manner. If not, I can still add a sentence or two to the existing Popularity section along the lines of what appears in ice hockey.—DCGeist (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't it's really notable enough in any other sport but in baseball it's a huge part of it's culture. BUC (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Buc, could you explain what you mean more precisely? Baseball, of course, appears in many American novels and films because of its popularity as the "national pasttime", but it is an amorphous topic. Are you thinking of a particular way that it has affected film and fiction? At the moment, I can't see how the editors would add anything specific. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Buc, your observation, followed by Awadewit's below that fantasy baseball and baseball cards should be mentioned in the main text made me realize that, contrary to my original view, there is a place for a Baseball in popular culture subsection in the article. Let me know if it provides the kind of summary coverage of baseball books and films you had in mind.—DCGeist (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - My style of reviewing (reading an entire article to pick out flaws) is rendered ineffective by massive articles like this one, so I probably won't be able to read through the whole page. Here are my thoughts on the opening part of the article: I've been doing much more article work recently, so I make no promises about returning here. Hopefully these will be good examples of things to check for in the rest of the article.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 03:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, can the See also links and External links sections be trimmed? There is a massive number of links in both sections. Check for See also links that have already been used in the body of the article, and see if external links provide added value for readers above and beyond this article.
 * Origins of baseball: "and more recently uncovered historical evidence suggest that the game in fact originated in England." Not a fan of "in fact" because we should should be striving to use facts (or at least verifiable information). If you want to maintain a contrast in the sentence, try using "actually".
 * "By the early 1830s, there are reports...". are→were for proper tense usage.
 * "with the 'New York Nine' defeating the Knickerbockers, 23–1, in four innings." This is an example of a noun plus -ing sentence structure, a hard-to-spot prose glitch. For advice on how to fix this, please read this guide.
 * The game turns professional: It would be nice to offer initials in parenthesis after the first usage of the National Association of Base Ball Players.
 * Baseball around the world: "because it would force the playoffs deep into cold weather." I think this means the winter season, but it's somewhat confusing, not to mention a slight exaggeration; they wouldn't be playing games in January.
 * Distinctive elements: "making the comparison between cricket and baseball an intriguing one" is almost certainly POV.
 * There are several embedded lists as the article goes along. Can any of these be condensed into paragraphs for improved readability?
 * I noticed a formatting error in reference 143 (Harris poll), and couldn't see how to fix it.


 * See also and External links: No See also links have already been used in the body of article; the current roster of links has been trimmed from a substantially longer one. Most of the External links are important organizational or independent, high-quality informational resources. Per your suggestion, I've removed three that are more specifically applicable to the History of baseball in the United States.
 * Copyediting observations: All of these have now been addressed.
 * Embedded lists: I believe all of the current embedded lists fall well within the Embedded list guideline; none of them are the sort of contentless list of links that our guideline focuses on steering contributors away from. The use of lists to describe different statistics, in particular, as well as different manners of making an out or recording a strike also reflect the practice of many baseball textbooks. Let's see if other reviewers have a particular issue with the current presentation of any of the relevant material.
 * Formatting of ref 143: I've been unable to identify the source of the problem. This a strange glitch that has persisted for a long time—I've tried every trick I can think of, to no avail. It may have to do with some quality of the linked site. Any tech whizzes out there capable of figuring this one out?—DCGeist (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Some kind of soft return in the title field. Steve  T • C 08:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thanks much.—DCGeist (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the lists in the article work well. They enumerate details that would get lost in paragraph form. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tech. Review
 * There are 0 dead external links, checked with the links checker tool.
 * There are 0 ref formatting errors, checked with WP:REFTOOLS.
 * Fix the 1 disambiguation link, checked with the dab finder tool.
 * Ground out -- T ru  c o   03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.—DCGeist (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * GIven that this is very definitely an "entry level article" let's not use abbreviations like MLB.com for publishers in the references. For that I'd use Major League Baseball website. Same for AAGPBL Players association, MILB.com, IBAF, etc.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art27001.asp
 * http://www.baseball-catcher.com/guide/signals.htm
 * http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2018/can-a-baseball-be-hit-farther-at-high-altitude
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Style for publishers' names: Done. The full names of the publishing baseball organizations have been given in the references.
 * Questioned sources: Addressed. In each case, the link has been removed and a superior source cited.—DCGeist (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you do me a favor and tell me what sources replaced which ones? I'd appreciate not having to dig through diffs (I do so many FACs...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The BellaOnline cite was replaced by references to a Metro article and a report appearing on the official Washington Nationals MLB site. The Baseball-Catcher.com cite was replaced by a reference to Stallings and Bennett (2003; Baseball Strategies: Your Guide to the Game Within the Game). The Straight Dope cite was replaced by a reference to Keri (2007; Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game Is Wrong). Thanks for prompting the improvement of the sourcing on these.—DCGeist (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments The article should mention that managers wear team uniforms, unlike most other sports, and also that there have been managers who were also players at the same time. Examples could be cited. Maybe I am correct that there are also coaches at first and third base who are uniformed, but not players.

Also, should the first few paragraphs have references? I see none.

Are there statistics available about overall paid attendance in recent years? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The suggestion about managers is a fine one. A sentence incorporating the point you raise has been added
 * Not sure what you mean about references. The first few paragraphs of the main text are richly referenced. If you're talking about the lead section, that normally comes without citations unless there are quotations, hard data, or something particularly contentious—none apply here.
 * Statistics on recent attendance are discussed in the Popularity and cultural impact section.—DCGeist (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've made some minor changes (putting page numbers in order, adding extra "p"s. The changes can be seen here. If you get a chance, could you quickly check to make sure I didn't mess anything up to badly? Mm40 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know too much about baseball, but the lead (not yet read the rest) seems to be a little US-centric. In particular, should a third of the text (ie, the third paragraph) be devoted to the MLB and the structure of the American baseball system? Sentences such as "These teams allow younger players ... similar levels of skill" seem better suited for a "baseball in the United States" article than one that should be about the game as a whole. indopug (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of work has gone in to making the article less US-centric (and less pro-centric). However, the lede does recognize the fact that a lot of users of the English-language Wikipedia will turn to this article to understand the basics of how the American major leagues work. Like it or not (and, believe me, I don't particularly) for many people, U.S. Major League Baseball is baseball. How do other reviewers feel about the balance struck here?—DCGeist (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up Per a similar observation from a subsequent reviewer, the third paragraph of the lede has been edited to address the structure of the game's top level in the two other countries were baseball is indisputably the leading team sport—Japan and Cuba. The minor league passage has been retained, in edited form, as it applies to these countries as well.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Great article but two minor suggestions. The image File:Baseball diamond.svg in its thumbnail form is hard to read. Of course, this is because a thumbnail is, well, small but I think a lighter shade of green in the background would make the text easier to see without clicking to get the larger image (note that many casual readers of Wikipedia don't realize that you can get the larger image. This image is probably very informative for those who know little about baseball and along the same lines, a diagram showing the typical defensive setup might be helpful. By the way, does there exist a detailed article on the various fielder setups? Or even more broadly on baseball strategy? Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you came across the article during a period when other Wikipedians were doing some copyediting, and the File:Baseball diamond.svg image was temporarily converted to thumbnail size. The image has to be of a certain dimension to be useful--its size has been set for a long time and is now again. I can't take credit for this wonderfully helpful image--it is the work of Cburnett, who worked very hard indeed on it, including several adjustments to the background shade of green. The hue arrived at is the one that worked best for the plurality of editor/readers who gave feedback during Cburnett's development process. In answer to your questions, there are currently no independent articles on the fielding setup or strategy, though both topics are explored in detail in the article on baseball rules.—DCGeist (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Leaning towards support - I don't know anything about baseball, so I am an ideal reader for this article. I think that it is clearly written (I was never confused) and coherently presented. I do have some questions regarding material I expected to find and did not as well as a few minor issues:


 * I am happy to fully support the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * File:JackieRobinson1945.jpg - This image is not linked to the LOC correctly (the ID number is wrong). Note that the license says "This license does not apply to pictures from the collection which were not taken by the magazine's own photographers." - We need to verify that Maurice Terrell is not one of the magazine's own photographers. Could you fix the link?


 * File:Cy young pitching.jpg - This image has no detailed sourced information, so the license cannot be verified. I tried to click on the LOC link and add this information myself, but the link does not work. Please fix the link and add the necessary source and date information.


 * File:Waseda University baseball players.jpg - The link to the LOC does not work. Please fix it. Thanks.


 * The lead does not mention leagues or tournaments outside of the US. Perhaps these should be mentioned?


 * "Early racial division" is such a small section. Should it be expanded or merged into one of the preexisting sections?


 * What do you think of including an image of the bat, ball, and mitt instead of the batter, umpire, and catcher in the "Rules" section?


 * About halfway through the "Rules and gameplay" section and again in the "Statistic" section, we hit patches of sexist language. All players are referred to as "he". There are a couple of ways to solve this: describe everything in the plural "Batters...they" or include both pronouns ("s/he" or "she or he"). The most elegant solution is to make the text plural.
 * Ex: A typical 25-man roster in a league without the DH rule, such as MLB's National League, will feature - This seems ok to me, as the MLB is entirely male, so it is accurate.
 * Ex: A batter strikes out if he gets three strikes. - This does not seem ok, as we are discussing general rules that apply to anyone, not just men. Unless just men strike out. :)


 * The pickoff throw would be demonstrated better with a video than a still shot. Would it be possible to get a video clip of such a throw?


 * The "See also" section needs to be cut down.


 * I'm wondering if more of the business and economics of baseball should be covered in the article. The players' strikes are an excellent beginning, but what about changing salaries in MLB? How much money does baseball make in other countries? How have changing ticket prices over the years changed the nature of baseball's audience?


 * Topics that perhaps should be added to the article:
 * Women's baseball - There are apparently contemporary women's baseball leagues. I feel that these should at least be mentioned.
 * Baseball cards - This seems like an important offshoot of baseball and integral to the fan experience. Perhaps a paragraph?
 * Fantasy baseball - The popularity of baseball has led to this unique game. Again, I would think that such an important part of fan culture would not be left out.

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your close reading and analysis of the article. I'll add to the following roster of specifics as items are addressed.
 * Jackie Robinson photo: The LOC ID number is correct. This LOC page confirms that Terrell was a Look staff photographer—to be clear (there was a typo in the above request), the license does cover work by the magazine's own staff photographers; it does not cover work by freelancers.
 * Cy Young photo: The LOC ID number is correct. All available date and source information has been added to the image's page at Wikimedia Commons.
 * Waseda University photo: The LOC ID number is correct.
 * Internationalizing lead section: Done. The third paragraph of the lede has been edited to address the structure of the game's top level in the two other countries were baseball is indisputably the leading team sport—Japan and Cuba.
 * Early racial division: Over the weekend, someone made a good faith, but ill-conceived, effort to create this new mini-section out of material that was part of the consistent chronological structure of the history section. The "section" has been dissolved, and its contents reintegrated (!) at the appropriate points.
 * Rules and gameplay image: There's two primary reasons I believe the current image works better than the proposed one: (a) if a reader is interested in getting a look at a ball, bat, and or glove, they need only click on the relevant links (which stand out, as they occupy the lone sentence at the beginning of the graf that leads into the descriptive list); if the image of the batter, catcher, and umpire were removed, there would be no similarly obvious place to go for this fundamental image; (b) proper placement of such an image as that proposed would unavoidably crowd against the baseball diamond image. As secondary matters, (c) in addition to the fairly obvious links, the article already does have several images of each of the three items (while a close-up obviously helps one to understand what distinguishes a baseball from other balls, the bat and the glove are quite clearly represented already, I think); (d) such an image would have to be created—I can find no such existing free image.—DCGeist (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)/DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand if you don't want to put a picture of the bat, ball, and mitt in the article. I just thought since they are an essential part of the game, they should be pictured. There are already other images of gameplay in the article. However, this is not the most important point in the world. Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not at all about not wanting to, it's about space constraints. Reason (b) above suggests that there is space in the relevant section for only one of two images we might like (ball-bat-mitt and batter-catcher-umpire), and that the latter is much more satisfactorily accommodated given proper positioning vis-à-vis the text; reason (a) (and, to an extent, c) confirms that the reader has clear and ready access to the visual information that the ball-bat-mitt image would contain. Perhaps I should have reversed the order of those reasons. That's all.—DCGeist (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gender-neutral language. Done. As you observed, there are a couple instances where major league play is specifically being discussed, and the male pronoun is applicable. Otherwise, gender-neutral language has been instituted: the Rules and gameplay, Strategy and tactics, and Statistics sections are now entirely gender-neutral.—DCGeist (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Video: Video would certainly be nice. But (a) I'm not sure there's encyclopedia-quality, free-content video available for this, and (b) I do almost all of my work via a dial-up connection, so I'm not really well-equipped to vet what might be out there.


 * Anyone could go to a game and record it. Perhaps this is something to work towards? If you get the video, I can edit it and transfer it to the right format for Wikipedia. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've put in a request on the baseball WikiProject talk page. We'll see if anything turns up. So far, I haven't been able to find a video camera owner among the people I know, and the local college baseball season has ended anyway. High school runs for a few more weeks, so if I come up with a camera, I might be able to do it myself. (This discussion inspired me to find the website that gives the local—New York City—high school baseball schedule. Thanks! High school ball is a lot of fun.) So, nothing might come up within the timeframe of this FAC discussion, but eventually something probably will and—thanks for the offer—I'll get it to you for formatting.—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. This will only enhance the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Baseball economics/attendance: The rapid growth of MLB salaries since the mid-1970s is mentioned in the history section; more detail on this is available, appropriately, in the topical History of baseball in the United States article. I've added information on revenue and attendance in the sport's two other leading nexuses, Japan and Cuba (though, in the case of the latter, we must report ideological positions rather than data). I've also added to the coverage of baseball at the youth level in those countries. Finally, I've added information on the effect of ticket prices on the nature of American baseball's audience—the story here may be somewhat surprising.—DCGeist (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Women's baseball. Addressed. Mention of present-day women's participation in baseball has been added to both Baseball around the world and Popularity and cultural impact.—DCGeist (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball cards and fantasy baseball. Addressed. Now well covered in new Baseball in popular culture section.
 * See also. Since recommendation, 15 See alsos have been eliminated, cutting list by more than 50%.—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Section headers should not have "the" in them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed. (One remains: The game turns professional is a clear, common-sense exception to the guideline; Game turns professional is awkward and nonidiomatic.)—DCGeist (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (btw, you can disregard my earlier comment) In the stats section, one should point out the importance of very large sample size. It's even more crucial than the discrete/limited outcomes aspect of things. Also, that section could/should be summarized and some of the content could/should be used to improve the somewhat dry baseball statistics article. I know that this isn't part of the FA criteria but it would be nice to make sure that articles linked to as main article are relatively clean (tag-free, sourced at an acceptable level). For the most part, they are already in very good shape but Baseball in the United Kingdom, Baseball in Japan, History of baseball in the United States could be improved. Pichpich (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * xtra comment. Would it make sense to shorten the see also section at the end by creating lists, such as List of sports related to baseball? Or simply use a link to Bat-and-ball games? Also, Fantasy baseball looks out of place in the "Culture" section. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thoughts I have to disagree with you on several of these points, Pichpich. Discussion of sample size belongs in the article on statistics, not this article on baseball. You can arrive at large sample sizes in many statistics from just about any sport. And it strikes me that the section is already very effectively done in summary style, while recognizing the need to plainly describe each statistic for the entry-level readers who will be coming to this sort of general article. I mean, the baseball statistics article details 95 different statistics (yes, I hand counted); this one, 24. More summation--either in count or in phrasing--would not be helpful at this point. If there are problems with the baseball statistics article (it actually doesn't seem so terribly dry to me), they're up to that article's editors to address, just like the others you mention. As for the links to the related sports, i find them the most useful part of the "See Also"s. And there's just not nearly enough to warrant the kind of list-article you suggest (even if we do add cricket, rounders, and...er...T-ball?).DocKino (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Been tracking this one for a while. Terrific job. I look forward to supporting as well. Two observations:
 * I see you recently added data on female participation. Is there any data available on overall participation?
 * Well done with making the language gender-neutral, following Awadewit's suggestion. In just one place--the list of the five basic outs--does the solution seem a tad verbose. What do you think about removing the phrase "an out is" from each of the five points? It still works structurally, e.g., "The ground out: recorded against a batter..." Actually, I think it works even better structurally. DocKino (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Participation data. Addressed. Reliable data added on (a) Little League participation both in U.S. and worldwide, and (b) U.S. high school and college participation. No one seems to have attempted a global participation study. I have also added a mention of the trend in overall participation in the United States. There are figures available for this, but they vary so drastically, I believe it's best not to get into them in this summary overview, and leave them for a careful appraisal in the history of baseball in the United States article. If you're interested, here's what I'm talking about:
 * Forbes (2002 data): overall participation—10 million, down 31% since 1987
 * SportsEvents Magazine (2008 data): overall participation—16 million, participation by boys 13 and younger—13.3 million
 * National Pastime, by Stefan Szymanski and Andrew S. Zimbalist (2003 data): participation under age 19—under 3.6 million (i.e., implicitly less than soccer participation), participation by ages 12–17 down 7% between 1987 and 1999
 * There appears to be no specific data (in the English language) for the other main baseball-playing countries.—DCGeist (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyedit outs. Done.—DCGeist (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Want to support - Couldn't ask for a more comprehensive article on one of my favorite pastimes. I won't give a full support because I haven't read the entire article, due to its massive size, but what I read looked mostly good. My one concern is the use of peacock terms; in the history section, I saw "the brilliant, and often violent, Ty Cobb", and "the legendary player Babe Ruth". Also saw "storied pitcher Roger Clemens" later in the text. Hopefully, there aren't too many more of these in the article. I won't come down too hard on the article, however, because there are many redeeming qualities. The one that sticks out in my mind is the section on gameplay. As any baseball fan knows, the sport is difficult to understand for newcomers due to its complexity; this article does a great job of explaining how the game works. It's not a perfect article, but that doesn't mean it isn't a high-quality one.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I don't think these are peacock terms. I know nothing about baseball, but I know these players, so they must actually be famous. There is nothing wrong with saying someone is a legend, when they actually are a legend within the sport itself. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, it's certainly true that in most Wikipedia contexts it would be preferable to have, for instance, "seven-time Cy Young Award–winning pitcher Roger Clemens". But in the context of this entry-level article, we would have to stop and explain exactly what the Cy Young Award is, and how seven of them is an exceptionally high number, and that just won't work in the kind of summary history the quotes have been pulled from. The terms you cite are used not at all for peacocking, but to tell a highly summarized story in a way that is both accurate and efficient. Those are the only three players whose undisputed greatness (at least performance-wise) is communicated in this summary fashion, serving the needs of the historical narrative. Note that no such description is used for Honus Wagner in the popular culture section, despite the fact that he is widely regarded as among the greatest players of all time—his quality as a performer and consequent fame are, of course, relevant to the value of his exceedingly rare card, but indicating those facts is not essential to the purposes of this section.
 * As for the specific terms used, they really shouldn't be controversial, as Awadewit points out. "Brilliant" is a very common epithet for Cobb in high-quality sources, as is "legendary" for Ruth—a quick Google Book Search can confirm this. "Storied" for Clemens was more off the top of my head, frankly with the intent of avoiding more extravagant possibilities. But I think we're on very solid ground here as well: within a few seconds of searching, I found a recent news article in a major metropolitan newspaper describing Clemens, his connection to the steroids scandal, and his "storied career." Here's an MLB.com article describing him as "contemporary baseball's most storied pitcher."—DCGeist (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments  from I hate baseball, but I couldn't ignore a core article of sports, well-written at that.
 * "The distinct evolution of baseball from older bat-and-ball games is difficult to trace with precision." How does "distinct" add to meaning here?
 * "However a 2005 book, Baseball Before We Knew It: A Search for the Roots of the Game, by David Block, and recently uncovered historical evidence suggest that the game originated in England. " Not grammatical. I think the "and" should be deleted.
 * "and a woodcut showing"-->and a woodcut that shows
 * "pushing off it in order to gain velocity"
 * "a runner on first base must attempt to advance if a ball lands in play." I think the italics are unnecessary.
 * bunt and Jerry Ross need to be disambiguated. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All done.—DCGeist (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent job rassling a very complex topic down to earth. The cultural coverage really completes the article. Well done. And thanks to Awadewit, we also have a model example of a fruitful FAC collaboration.DocKino (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On a very cursory scan, I easily found three undefined terms and acronym not defined on first occurrence; please review the entire article for lingo, linking and definitions. See my edit summaries.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found the article extremely accessible. Not every term can be defined. As I said, I know nothing about baseball, but could easily follow this article. I don't think jargon/lingo is a problem in this article. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Samples included: terms like putout and slugging percentage should be linked; sometimes, even people who do know baseball may be unsure how to calculate stats. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, that is just the sort of thing that should not be explained in the basic article. I did look at your edits, but I think explaining the terms would interrupt the flow of the prose and actually impede understanding. Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Links for putout/strike/expansion team on first occurrence all good. Per suggestion, found a few more linkable terms in lead and history sections (farm system, fair ball, baserunning).
 * Note that slugging percentage has always been linked on first occurrence. A good faith effort was made to gloss Babe Ruth's "slugging records" by linking slugging to slugging percentage, but this is improperly limited. The words slugging and slugger have been applied idiomatically to power hitting and power hitters since at least the 1880s. "Slugging records" have thus long referred to a range of power-related records, only one of which is slugging percentage (the term was introduced in 1923 and did not become an official statistic in Ruth's American League until 1946, well after his playing days). Trust is is placed in our readers that even those entirely new to the field of baseball will be able to make the connection between Ruth's "slugging records" and the description of him as a "great power hitter". I'll note also that to slug means to hit hard in British English as well, and that slogging has a very similar meaning in all English-speaking countries where cricket is played (though there is a standard connotation of artlessness, which applies to slugging only among us antediluvian small-ball connoisseurs).
 * The introduction of the term safe has been recast—concision and the existing structure of the Rules and gameplay section have been maintained, while the definition has been clarified to address Sandy's inline queries.—DCGeist (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been through again, but if you doublechecked all the linking, I'm satisfied (I went through several sections myself as well). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I gave it another pass and added a couple of more links in the lede (section links for batting team and fielding team). I believe linkage of the baseball-related terms is comprehensive now.—DCGeist (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Citation to be resolved:   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved.—DCGeist (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No offence, but citing a dead tree source from 1896 seems far from a satisfactory resolution. A relevant quote in the footnote might help. As it is, I imagine the source is meant to support the "no statistical equivalent" comment. Traditionally, this is correct, but cricket statistics have undergone some innovation recently and I think this is now too categorical a statement. I'm sure I've heard commentators comparing the number of fielding errors committed by each team in recent years. Anyway, my main concern here is not that claim, but the implication that there is less emphasis on personal responsibility in cricket as a result. I believe this is highly misleading. Personal responsibility in cricket focuses on aspects that are more critical to the game; fielding errors don't usually matter much (except perhaps dropped catches) compared to losing your wicket. I think this sentence needs to be reworded at least, or even deleted. -- Avenue (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, my compliments on a very nice article. Sorry if the above seems picky, but I think that's our role here. -- Avenue (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I'm happy to address the issue you raise. Relevant quote added to footnote. Here it is for easy access:


 * The scoring is one of the most interesting features in this new importation from America [baseball]. Every detail of play is recorded, and a man's mistakes are tabulated as well as his successes.... A line in a cricket score may read, 'Lockwood, caught Stoddart, bowled J. T. Hearne; 30.'... [T]here is so much that is left out! There is no mention of the fact that O'Brien missed Lockwood before he had scored, and that somebody else failed to take a chance when his score was ten. These are items that go to make cricket history; but there is no record of them in the analysis.... The man who catches a ball is thought worthy of mention, but the man who muffs one does not suffer by publicity.


 * As for your other observations, one could take the age of the source as an indicator that this distinction between baseball and cricket was apparent and noteworthy even early in the history of systematic statistical record-keeping. I'm afraid that—remarkably—statistical innovation in cricket has still not reached the systematic recording of the missed or dropped catch and the categorical statement still stands: even the most complete match scorecard does not record fielding errors; even the most complete player's statistical history does not record fielding errors. Indeed, one of the ways we know that dropped catches are important in cricket is that commentators do regularly comment on them, but try as you might, you will not find a scorecard that names the culprits or a player's history that tallies his blunders. After the front page of the New York Times, the first thing I look at online every morning is Cricinfo.com—believe me, the day cricket fielding errors start getting scored and tabulated, I'll be on top of it.


 * Finally, the article does make clear that this distinction is limited. There is no implication that there is ultimately more or less focus on individual responsibility in baseball batting vs. cricket batting or baseball pitching vs. cricket bowling, but only in the area of fielding, and specifically there in the recording or nonrecording of individual failures. Quoting the article now: "There is no statistical equivalent in cricket for the fielding error and thus, in this way, less emphasis on personal responsibility." I believe that is precise and properly focused, and about as precise and focused as we can get.—DCGeist (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice quote - it even addresses the issue of accountability. My recollection is that the only cricket fielding statistics I've heard were about teams, not players, so they are probably not relevant to personal responsibility anyway. My biggest concern now is that the limiting clause in the responsibility sentence seems a bit too weak. I'll reword it slightly to address this. -- Avenue (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The rewording is fine.—DCGeist (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Nice work with this article! Given the complexity required of a core article, it can't have been easy to develop. Everyone involved should be congratulated. I do have two suggestions: First, that you explain farm team in the text as well as the lede (I suggest wikilinking the text reference to minor league teams), and second, the sentence dealing with Baseball Before We Knew It in the origins section is somewhat awkward. Grammatically, you need a comma after "however". This might break up the sentence with too many commas, however, so I'd suggest rewriting to eliminate that interjection — it's not needed. Other than these two minor things, it's a very fine article. Great job. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Done (And thank you.)—DCGeist (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for writing it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Nice job on the re-write, DCGeist. Very comprehensive and easy to understand.  I made several changes throughout, mainly nit-picks, and if any of them offend you, feel free to revert. Tex (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm no expert on the topic, but this seems to be a very solid article on a vast subject. Well done. -- Avenue (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.