Wikipedia:Peer review/2004 World Series/archive3

2004 World Series

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I first found this article in this form and I nominated it for FA status a while back but withdrew it due to issues being raised that would take while to fix. I hope I've addressed these issues now, but I want to be sure before I consider re-nominating, see the FAC page here.

As I'm hoping to make this a FA, please review this as you would a FAC. BUC (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments –
 * At the FAC, SandyGeorgia commented on the many MLB.com (primary) sources, and asked why more third-party sources weren't included. I remember posting links to several Sports Illustrated and Time magazine issues. Have these been read? The sourcing is improved from the first FAC, but there are still a large number of MLB.com stories. Game recaps are avaliable online from many newspapers, not to mention offline stories.
 * I've found replacements for as many of the MLB.com ref as I can. Yes I've read mazine articles, doesn't appear to be any new informtion in them, just general talk about the Red Sox. BUC (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of text on the Curse of the Bambino really shouldn't be in Aftermath because it was the biggest story heading into the Series. If anything, I'd expect to see most of it matched with the ALCS summary.
 * I don't want to go into too much detail about the ALCS in this article. Curse of the Bambino didn't end until they won the world serise, so it has to be in the aftermath section.
 * Couple of questionable sources: IMDB (ref 58; something better should be out there on the broadcasters) and Baseball Almanac (ref 55; it's never been proved reliable).
 * This means having too use MLB.com again. The IMDB ref was all I could find.
 * In this case, I feel it would be better to use a primary source than a poor one.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 68 is a New York Times story that should be freely avaliable online. Would be nice to include a link. I mentioned this, along with one of the sources above, at the first FAC.
 * The best prose suggestion I can offer is to get someone who knows nothing about baseball to look at the article and point out jargon issues. Terms unfamiliar to non-baseball fans are always an obstacle for sports articles at FAC, and I have much trouble finding them myself.
 * Game 1: "Williams gave up a lead-off double to Orlando Cabrera, and then hit Orlando Cabrera in the shoulder with a wild pitch. "lead-off" is a perfect example of baseball jargon, and I'm confused by the last part; how could it be a wild pitch and a hit batter? I'm as big a baseball fan as anyone here and that left me shaking my head.
 * I would have thought a wild pitch could quite easily hit a batter, in fact you see it all the time. However I've checked the box score and it seems it was not scored a wild pitch on this occasion. BUC (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Game 2: "Large blame for the Cardinals' losses in the first two game was directed at the fact that Rolen, Jim Edmonds and Reggie Sanders, three of the Cardinals' best batters, had combined for just one hit in 22 at-bats." Structure and grammar of this sentence need work. This would be an improvement: "Much of the blame for the Cardinals' losses in the first two games was directed at Rolen, Jim Edmonds and Reggie Sanders, three of the team's best batters, who combined for just three hits in 22 at-bats." The statistic was wrong as well.
 * I've checked the box score from games one and two, they only had one hit, in fact they only had one hit in the whole series. BUC (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That means the source for this statement has a factual error. Reference 41 says "Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds and Reggie Sanders are a combined 3-for-22 in the first two games of the Fall Classic." Having checked Baseball-Reference box scores to confirm the inaccuracy, a correct source should be inserted.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Game 3: "After forcing out Walker at first base, David Ortiz began moving toward Suppan who had turned his back toward third, Ortiz threw to third baseman Mueller who tagged Suppan out." Could use a semi-colon to replace the comma before Ortiz, and a pair of commas before "who"s.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)