Talk:1951 National League tie-breaker series/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review, comments to follow in the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, you might want to make sure you're not using overly technical language here. I'll try to point out specific examples as I get further down.
There are a few repeated wikilinks, might want to weed some of those out.
No dabs, but this looks dead.
Lone image looks fine.
I made some copyedits, feel free to object to any of them.
Spotchecked 3, 7, 21, and 31. No issues found.

Lead

I think you might want to add more about the outcomes of the games. Also, some of the second paragraph might be a bit trivial for the lead, you might want to move that into the body.
I'd move the third sentence to the second place, too.

Background

"The 1951 Major League Baseball season was projected to be a contest" Might want to avoid the passive here.

Game 1 summary

"In the bottom of the first, Carl Furillo grounded out Pee Wee Reese got the first hit of the game with a single." Something got mixed up here.
I feel like the Yankee scout's attendance might be a bit trivial here, no problem, but you might want to remove.
"Neither team managed a hit in the seventh inning, as both pitched retired the first three batters they faced." Something mixed up here.

Game 2 summary

"The Giants failing to get a hit in the bottom of the ninth to end the game." Fragment, also fused participle.
"After the game resumed, Labine scored on back-to-back singles by Reese and Snider, and the Giants came up to bat, failing to earn a hit as the score became 6–0 after six innings." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two.

Game 3 summary

"Newcombe set down the Giants in order in the bottom of the eighth" This is one example of something that might be confusing to non-baseball fans, is there a way to make it clearer?

Aftermath

The quote you have is good, but would it be possible to summarize more of the reception?
When did Prager publish that the Giants learned signals? And when did Branca give that quote to the Times?
I'd move the penultimate paragraph to the last place.
Is there a good way around the repetition of "gave him"?
I'd mention that the shot heard round the world became very famous/made its way into fiction/lore. No need to go into too much detail, but it might be nice to have a mention. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done except aftermath and wikilink-checking. Undecided on taking the Yankees scout piece on, I found it interesting but it seems like an obvious thing for them to do. Wizardman 02:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for the fixes, I think this looks passable at this point--good work! It's a very thorough presentation of a fascinating event, and I'll pass it now. My only concern left is the second paragraph of the lead. It seems a bit trivial for the lead, and I'd prefer to see it moved to the body and cited. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! I'll still be tweaking things here as I work on the Shot article, so what I didn't touched yet will likely be addressed at some point, or if not then it will at least be over there in much greater detail. Wizardman 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]