Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Nashville Sounds no-hitters/archive1

List of Nashville Sounds no-hitters

 * 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 January 2009.
 * As this is a list, not an article, most of the suggestions do not apply. The lead may be longer than suggested, but it serves as the only prose section, adequately covering the subject. The over-linking was probably triggered by the stadium name repeating in the table. The article has one image; free images of other pitchers are unable to be found. No infobox exists for such an article. The article is only short because it is a list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As this is a list, not an article, most of the suggestions do not apply. The lead may be longer than suggested, but it serves as the only prose section, adequately covering the subject. The over-linking was probably triggered by the stadium name repeating in the table. The article has one image; free images of other pitchers are unable to be found. No infobox exists for such an article. The article is only short because it is a list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to achieve Featured Topic status for the Nashville Sounds topic some day. As this list is too short to become a featured list (it was nominated and failed), it needs to be peer reviewed. I believe it is well-written and could become a featured list, but is only held back by its size.

Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

There's not a lot to review here. The shortness of the list seems to be the main stumbling block to its becoming featured. Other than waiting for the Sounds to achieve a few more no-hitter games, the most practical way to getting it featured, or at any rate to GA, would be to re-write it as an article, with prose descriptions of the games replacing the list.

On the intro as it stands at the moment:-
 * "...just one night after Randy Johnson and Pat Pacillo of the Indianapolis Indians combined for no-hit loss against Nashville". This reads like baseball shorthand for something, and I'm not sure what. Does it mean that, the previous night, Sounds themselves had suffered a no-hit loss at the hands of the Indianapolis Indians? If so, could this not be said simply? There's no need to name the pitchers who inflicted the defeat, they are not relevant to this article.
 * I did some rewording that should clarify the situation. (The night before, the Indians pitched a no-hitter, but lost to the Sounds.) Though the pitchers aren't necessarily relevent to Sounds no-hitters, they are relevent to the fact that it was the first and only time in league history that two teams pitched no-hitters on back-to-back nights. I don't think leaving them in hurts anything. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More baseball-ese in "That game was won when Nashville's Lenny Harris drew a walk, stole two consecutive bases, and scored on a groundout". Completely mystifying to those of us who don't know baseball, and a pity, because the "no-hit" concept was explained very clearly at the start of the introduction. (I also wonder if this sentence is relevant to this article?)
 * There has been some re-wording here too. Baseball lingo in the sentence is linked; "walked" is linked earlier in the paragraph. It's relevence is that it explains how the Indians lost the game when they didn't allow a single hit. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Next sentence: "...that teams played in back-to-back no hit games" As far as I can make it out, only one team (Sounds) played in back-to-back no-hit games, so "teams" is wrong.
 * Hopfully the previous fixs make it clear that the back-to-back games involved two teams (Sounds & Indians). -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "toss" is more baseball-ese. Does it mean the same as "pitch"?
 * Yes... changing to "pitch". -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is (virtually) a word-for-word repeat of an earlier sentence. This is unimaginative. I would end the paragraph with something like: "Parra threw 107 pitches, striking out 11 hitters and providing the third nine-innings complete game in PCL's history".
 * Changed almost verbatim. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Final point: what is (7) doing in the table?
 * It indicates that only 7 innings were played instead of the normal 9. This is now explained in the table key. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope these points help you to decide the article/list's future. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaldari comments

Other than that, I can't see anything else that needs improvement. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "One occurred while members of the Double-A..." The wording here is a bit tricky. Maybe "One occurred while the team was a member of the Double-A..."
 * It would be nice to see more independent sources in the refs. I'll see if I can dig some up.
 * I added Tennessean article citations for the two perfect games. I'll leave it up to you if you want to leave the non-independent refs as well. Personally, I like having both. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the sentence per your suggestion. Thanks for adding the independent refs. I'll just leave the other refs intact for now. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)