Wikipedia:Peer review/1962 National League tie-breaker series/archive1

1962 National League tie-breaker series
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've been writing these tie-breakers for a while and was particularly proud of this one here. Tried an FAC last year with no real success, would love any advice on fixing this up. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I am doing some copyediting on the article, and will list my review comments when this is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Brianboultonomments: I have looked at the previous FAC and read the concerns about the inaccessibilty of the language to all but baseball fans. My take on that is that, since this article is about a series of three specific matches, and not a club history or an article about the game generally, it is inevitable that the some of the language and terms will be unfamiliar to the general reader. However, some effort has to be made to accomodate this tiresome person, who insists on reading baseball articles. I have indicated occasions in which I think rephrasing or a little more explanation is required.

More generally, notwithstanding prolific use of specialist terms, the prose has to be of featured standard, and at present I think it falls some way short. I have done a certain amount of ce to pull it into shape, but more attention is necessary. Punctuation (or lack of it) is a problem, and there are far too many sentences with illogical "and" conjunctions. Someone with a good knowledge of baseball and a feel for good prose needs to go through this text, before you think of bringing this back to FAC. User:Wehwalt has chipped in to this review with some helpful comments and suggestions, which I have incorporated with my own.
 * Specific concerns
 * "tied records of 101–61" could be written, first time, as "tied records of 101 victories and 61 losses"
 * "The Giants struck first, winning the first game..." This phrasing is more sports journalism than encyclopedia. I suggest you simplify to: "The Giants won the first game..."
 * "breaking their 35-inning scoreless streak". This is difficult to understand without a context. Also, I don't like "their"; I suggest "breaking a 35-inning scoreless streak stretching back through the last x games of the regular season" - or some such explanatory phrasing
 * At end of Backgound section: "and had chosen the same format." What is this referring to?
 * Probably playing the first game on the road and the remaining two at home, although in 1959, the Dodgers won the series, two games to none so Game 3 was not played.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First game: It's wrong to say "the Giants were the first to score", since the Dodgers didn't score at all. I'd say "In the game the Giants scored, by striking..." etc
 * Second game:
 * "Giants' starter Jack Sanford then reached based..." Is "based" a typo for "base"?
 * It's got to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ernie Bowman replaced Nieman at second base for the Giants in the bottom of the inning and no runs scored in the frame." The grammar seems wrong here, but I'm unsure how to put it right, as I have no idea what it means anyway. But maybe a comma after "inning", and "no runs were scored"? Perhaps: "Bowman replaced Nieman at second base for the Giants in the bottom of the inning, in which no runs were scored".
 * "to tie the game at seven runs apiece". It would be better, for consistency, to rephrase this "to tie the game at 7–7", as that is how you have represented scores previously.
 * " and then allowed a game-winning walk-off sacrifice fly to Fairly driving in Wills." Is "walk-off sacrifice fly" a single term? Should there be a comma after "Fairly"?
 * My larger problem with this is that walk-off was a term not invented until I think the 1990s. ESPN, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I always understood that Dennis Eckersley invented the term in describing the infamous HR he allowed to Kirk Gibson (so 1988). But Wiki articles often use contemporary terms to describe past acts. EG, World War II is described as that throughout despite it not always being known as that. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(comment inserted by User:Wehwalt): I'm not even sure that it's a valid term, since postseason berth is a later term as applied to baseball, as in those days you made the World Series or you didn't. This playoff series was considered a continuation of the regular season and statistics counted towards regulat season, for example Wills' stolen base record got extended.
 * Third game:
 * Punctuation: Earlier in the article I have inserted a number of commas that were necessary for grammar and clarity. The tendency to comma-less sentences seems particularly acute in this third game description. Examples: "Manager Alvin Dark had chosen not to try and hold Wills to the first base bag as Dark did not believe his Giants' defense could stop Wills from stealing regardless of their positioning". Needs two commas, I'd say. And "Roebuck barely managed to knock the ball down to hold Mays to a single and Mays said he was "still mad" after the game because he had expected more off of the hit" needs a semicolon in place of the "and". There is much more of this that needs looking at.
 * Last sentence: "Had the Dodgers not yielded the lead in the final inning they instead would have earned a postseason berth, their first since winning the pennant via a tie-breaker in 1959". You could replace the jargon term "postseason berth" with a clear explanation. Also, 1959 was only three seasons previously, not several decades, so "their first since..." seems a bit overstated.
 * Aftermath: This section needs to be rethought. At present, most of its material is irrelevant to the article, which is about a three-match tiebreaker series.
 * First phrase: "The Giants' win earned the franchise its 17th playoff berth..." There is confusion here between the tiebreaker series, which you refer to in the first sentence of the article as "a three-game playoff series", and the terms "playoff berth" and "postseason birth", which I take it refer to the World Series. Can we please have clarity and uniformity of terms?
 * I don't consider the Giants' appearances in World Series 10, 20 or 40 years after the 1962 series to be part of the aftermath"
 * I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it's a pretty commonly included thing across the project. It shows the path that different franchises take and thus the importance (or lack thereof) of this tie-breaker on the franchise history. Here, for example, the Dodgers kept on winning and won a World Series just 2 years later while the Giants infamously took 50+ years to finally win a title in their new city. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think phrasing such as "swept the Yankees" qualifies as acceptable technical phrasing, however often the term is used in sporting journalism.
 * That is universally the terminology, though. I don't see how it's any different from using "homer" as an alternative version of "home run". The lingo is the lingo. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Attendance records for the season are not part of the aftermath of the tie-breaking series
 * "Game 2 was the longest nine-inning game in MLB history with a time of 4:18" This information has already been given.
 * The second paragraphs seems to be a miscellany of information about the teams' or individuals' performances in the 1962 season.

As I am not watching individual peer reviews, please contact me on my talkpage if you wish to raise issues from this review, or if you wish me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I notice Brian working on it and offered him some comments. I did not read the complete article, but enough of it to convince me there are problems with overuse of jargon and informality of tone.  It is not unsolvable, but it needs very close attention.  I'm not available to do the work, by the way!  I'm pretty snowed with work, but I will be happy to give specific pieces of advice if you approach me on my talk.  Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing more. I just ran a search for the date "1951" in the article.  I was stunned that it was not found.  Brian's British, so he won't necessarily get why this is important at first sight, but the 1951 series utterly hung over this series, especially Game 3, even though no game was played within 2,000 miles of Coogan's Bluff.  There is no way you can get away with this at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love any advice you have to give (I'll hit you up on your talk page). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Writer 2.0 comments: To echo Brianboulton's comments, some of the terms that have been used may not necessarily be recognized by someone unfamiliar with the sport and this alone can hurt your chances at FAC, just look at my initial nomination of History of the New York Jets. Needless to say, you need to be careful and thorough, though I can sympathize with your frustration at the suggested removal of some terms, Wehwalt and I suffered similar issues but in the end, compromise does pay.

To me, the sentence structure, at times, feels a bit awkward but, all else aside, the article looks in pretty good shape in terms of content and references. You'll find other reviewers who will be more picky but from my point of view, the resolution of the aforementioned issues will certainly make life easier for you when you submit this to FAC.

I'd be more than happy to help spruce up the article and be an extra set of eyes if you wish. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hugely appreciate that. This is the most difficult step for me, as at this point I've reread the text so many time it all looks right to me even where it isn't. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)