Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1


 * 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 User:GrahamColm 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC).

Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Major League Baseball's current consecutive scoreless innings record streak by Orel Hershiser. This is a new type of article at FAC so I hope a lot of sports fans will take the time to shape it correctly as a model for future articles on records.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this nom would be more appropriate for featured list. Beerest 2 talk 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe this article is a solid start, but the FAC criteria require a subject to be placed in context.  Nowhere does this article discuss why the streak is important or how the streak was covered by the press at the time.  Without that info, this is not quite ready to be featured. Indrian (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't its importance established in the first sentence that says: "Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak is the current Major League Baseball record for consecutive scoreless innings pitched by a pitcher." Does it need to be more important than that to be a FA (according to WP:WIAFA)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. I am aware that this is a noteworthy streak because I am a baseball fan and baseball history enthusiast.  I am not saying the topic is not worthy.  However, the article needs to articulate this importance by pulling from reliable sources that explain its significance.  Without that, this is a list of dates and game summaries with no larger context, and criteria 1b specifically requires context.  One sentence saying that this feat is a "record" does not explain to the layman why he should care. Indrian (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are asking for. Reference 1 is ESPN's celebration of the 25-year anniversary of the streak. Does this have the elements in it that you are inquiring about. I presume that if ESPN celebrates the 25-year anniversary of an event, that event is important.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a historical context subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of information at the time, we have Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, and Los Angeles Times from 1988. What are you looking for in terms of press at the time. Why is that insufficient press at the time according to WP:WIAFA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you have no press coverage of the streak, you have information on individual games pulled from contemporaneous sources. Placing this streak in context requires coverage of the feat itself.
 * When did people start to believe Hershiser might set a new record?
 * How much attention did the media focus on him?
 * Did the extra pressure have any effect on his performance?
 * Did the fact that a very popular former Dodger held the record at the time play a role in people's perception of the streak?
 * Did Lasorda manage differently when Hershiser pitched as the streak progressed?
 * How did the division race affect things?
 * What kind of celebrations and/or festivities were held when the record was broken?
 * Not all of the questions I have posed may be relevant or answerable, but some of this narrative needs to be developed to have a comprehensive article. All you have is dates and games. Indrian (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose You can't assume everyone is a baseball expert. The lead didn't help me at all, so I didn't read further. I'm baffled by unexplained jargon like 7-time All-Star... baseball Hall of Famer... relievers... born an asterisk...&mdash; I can't even visualise how you can give birth to an asterisk, irrespective of any jargon meaning  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed all of this jargon from the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They were just examples. Scoreless innings isn't defined, I assumed initially it was a bad thing like a duck in cricket or a team not scoring in football. Is it inning or innings? Both occur in the opening sentence. Also prose issues; "Greatest" twice in second sentence, low numbers should be spelt out etc. I think that this may well be a potential FA, but we are being asked to do a lot of work here, that should have been addressed before it's nominated. I suggest withdrawing, making it intelligible to a non-baseball fan and getting the copyediting issues sorted  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  07:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose -- As the reviewer of the GA nominee. It just became a GA: take some time to expand, reference, and clarify. Jimfbleak is right. Although I do happen to know about baseball, nor everyone does.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your oppose is almost inactionable. Time since GA is not a consideration at WP:FAC, which is based on WP:WIAFA. Saying take some time and make some more edits is not a valid oppose. Please review WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let me go by WP:WIAFA: it fails #1a. It likely fails other criterion (including partially 1b). Tony, you completely missed the point of my statement above. It just passed a GA: go make some improvements first. Unless an article is quick passed (I'd bet that's a rarity), it will likely not pass as a FA immediately. I said exactly what I meant: add references, make it easier to understand for a group other than sports fanatics. Trust me, if the GA reviewer hadn't been a sports fanatic like myself, it would not have been as easy of a pass.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 15:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close per WP:SNOW. This just became a GA, rushing through the FA process is misguided. There is no deadline. This article was not engaging to me. I am only casually interested in baseball, and the article was dull. its basically Baseball Reference in proseform. Heck, the term scoreless inning is not even explained in the lead. I dont know about baseball terms, does this mean when he pitched the other team never scored? With articles like these, its most important to make sure you are writing for people who DONT know the sport. Beerest 2 talk 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never been asked to define a term in the WP:LEAD before. Is this the correct place to define a scoreless inning?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest withdrawal per above. " It is considered to be among the greatest individual streaks in sports history and among the greatest records in baseball history." is very weaselly, and the technical language is still thick throughout the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How is the average reader, assuming a limited understanding of the intricacies of baseball, supposed to understand the tables scattered across the article? I mean, I understand them because I am a baseball nut, but there is nothing here to explain what the abbreviations in the column headers are, nor is there an explanation of why those particular innings are visualized by tables. I'm sure if I read the article further, I would find several more examples of the article being impenetrable to the average reader. I believe this nomination was premature. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 12:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have created a legend for one table. Will review the others as I can.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. These particular innings are the ones that the secondary sources discuss. WP is suppose to summarize the secondary sources. So I have included those innings covered in the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My point, though, is why does the reader care about these innings? How are they supposed to know that they are significant? There needs to be some kind of explanation, e.g. these were close calls where the streak could have ended. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the suggested withdrawals. However, WP:PR now seems to be less reliable than before. I am having article go through entire cycles without comment and my next FAC is already 16 days into a cycle without comment (Peer review/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive1). Thus, I'll accept all comments as they continue to come.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WITHDRAWAL REQUESTED at WT:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.