Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Philadelphia Phillies season/archive2

2008 Philadelphia Phillies season

 * 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 February 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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for its second peer review because it's just gone through the GA process. I didn't think about FA when I started this run with the article, but now I'm tempted to do it. To that end, I would like the opinions of other editors as to what is needed in this article to reach the FA standard. Your input is appreciated. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from Dewelar
 * Nice job overall. A couple questions: 1) where's the roster box? and 2) is this now the accepted standard for team-season page stat tables? Because if it is I have to go back and change about 1,500 pages that I've changed in the past six months :) . I was also under the impression that game logs were no longer to be included in these articles, but that may be my misinterpretation of the recent discussion. -Dewelar (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of an "accepted standard" for stats tables; it's essentially based off of what I know of the FL criteria, since that's where most of my table-building expertise comes from. I know nothing about a roster box, though I have seen them; who, exactly, should be included in said box? As to the third point, whether game logs are to be included in the future (I believe them to be necessary, but that's beside the point), this article was completed before that discussion was brought before the Project. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, as I have mentioned before, that there is no "accepted standard" for the stat tables. Nobody's really wanted to touch the standardization of team-season pages -- most likely of the enormity of the task -- but I took it upon myself to ensure that each one has a standard layout (i.e., all the sections in the same order, and everything that belongs in those sections actually in those sections), and at least has a roster box and stat tables, even if those are empty.
 * In reviewing the 2,500 or so team-season articles, I noted that most were using one particular layout for them, which someone mentioned as having been created by Soxrock. I modified it a bit, and submitted it to the group for discussion. Sadly, little discussion was forthcoming, and so going by the "silence = consent" doctrine, I have been slowly but surely adding (or converting) all team-season articles to this template. I now have all pre-1900 teams completed, along with about half of post-1900 teams.
 * As for the roster box, pretty much every team-season has one, although the vast majority of them have little or no data. However, Spanneraol has ensured that all Dodger team-season pages have one, along with a large chunk of the pre-1900 teams.
 * I won't rehash the discussion of game logs here, but I think the consensus was that they're more trouble to create than they're worth, and that an external link to one located elsewhere was sufficient. They're certainly available in enough places (Retrosheet, Baseball Reference, Baseball Almanac, etc). Even though I personally consider them little more than clutter, I won't object to the inclusion of one, but if one is included I would encourage the editor to ensure that it is in collapsed form (which you have done).
 * If you want a look at a page with both pieces in fully filled-out form, you can take a look at 1977 Oakland Athletics season. Obviously, these lack some of the data and some of the formatting of yours, but you can get an idea for what I've been doing. One caveat though - the roster box has flag icons, which recent discussion also determined do not belong on such pages. You should probably use the MLBplayer template rather than the Player one. -Dewelar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan to me; I will check out some other articles to be sure that the proper sections are included. Since there are no other individual team season articles that are currently at FA or GA, I would like to make this one into an example to be followed, if possible. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Roster box has been added directly above the regular season statistics. All players who made an appearance for the Phillies during the 2008 season are included. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I made one minor formatting change to bring the Outfielder and Manager headers up to the top of the box to line up with the other two columns.
 * A few more things to bring it into standardized form:
 * Roster should be a sub-section of the Regular Season section, below the Game Log.
 * The Postseason and Awards section should be the last two main sections of the page, in that order. Since this is an article based on a period of time, these items, which came at the end of that time period, should reflect that in their placement.
 * As to the above two suggestions, the article is structured the way it is to make it a continuous read, followed by tables and lists. This is why I collapsed all of the game logs and box scores. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, looking at it again, I didn't even do this; I'm so used to looking at the article that I totally skip the middle section. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, roster moved. Statistics were left at the end because they follow the structure of the lead, wherein postseason results (which are of tantamount importance) come before statistics.
 * That's reasonable. I will note here that I have seen some articles that also have tables for postseason statistics, which is what, I believe, necessitates that the regular season stats be placed beneath the regular season section, and the postseason ones below the postseason section, so as to avoid confusion. Otherwise I can see the logic for either order being valid. -Dewelar (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Breaking the Curse probably shouldn't be a top-level header on its own. I'd make it the final sub-header of the Postseason section. This one is more of a suggestion, I suppose.
 * That's a possibility, I suppose as well; I placed it that way because it has its own main article, but that article doesn't hold much water at this point considering the postseason series. I will move it. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -Dewelar (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)