Talk:2010 Claxton Shield

2010 Claxton Shield has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 22, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
August 7, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Australia: Baseball Low‑importance

	Australia portal 2010 Claxton Shield is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian baseball task force (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Baseball: Australian Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian baseball task force (assessed as High-importance).

Sponsorship

I found a brief mention of the "Dominos Claxton Shield" in this article, but haven't found any reference to Dominos' sponsorship of the competition, apart from having their logo on the front page of the Claxton Shield site. Can anyone else find anything about this? Or any other sponsorship deals relating to the Shield? Afaber012 (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I didn't notice this comment on the talk page and was about to create a new query about it. It was named in a few articles as the 2010 Dominoes Claxton Shield. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 04:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Claxton Shield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –Grondemar 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working This article looks very interesting. I'll aim to complete the review in the next few days. –Grondemar 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to complete this review! I have the following concerns that I'd like to see addressed before I pass this article as a good article:

The Regular Season section lacks references; please add.

On the subject of references, virtually every reference in the article is a primary source. I'd like to see some secondary sources added to the article. I believe the exclusive reliance on primary sources leads the article to feel very mechanical and dry rather than descriptive; rather than just saying that South Australia played New South Wales on x date and scored y runs, the article should describe what the games were like—what notable and interesting things happened during the playing of the Claxton Shield.
It would be nice to add some free-use images from the playing of the Claxton Shield if you can find any, although the lack of images won't keep this article from obtaining GA status.
The flags in the statistical leaders tables don't really help identify the teams each player played for; I'd suggest replacing with the team name or at least an abbreviation.
The first sentence in the statistical leaders says "The following information is correct as of 24 January 2010 and only includes statistics from regular-season games." With the season over, wouldn't it make more sense to include complete data?

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article will be placed on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.

Thanks, and sorry once again for taking so long. –Grondemar 05:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't get to these straight away, but they don't seem to be too big issues. The references should be easy, because they'll be in the regular season article. Unfortunately secondary sources are tricky to find because of the level of coverage of baseball here. There is a site I can go through to get some though, so I'll work on that. There are a number of images I could probably use, and I've been trying to get onto the ABF to get clearance on the rights for them: pictures of the winning team with the shield celebrating the win, that sort of thing. About the stats, traditionally in baseball - or perhaps more accurately, following the system in use in Major League Baseball - stats for a season only include games from the regular season. (I assume on the basis that all players have the opportunity to achieve milestones, records, etc with the same number of games as everyone else, with post-season games counting separately.) I'll review the post-season games and see if I can pick out any particular feats of note.

I'll get onto these over the weekend, and let you know when I've got these sorted. Afaber012 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to the Regular season section, and they're from a secondary source. (Having a look at WP:SPS, my interpretation is that the primary sources here would be fine: I would think the ABF is a reliable source at least in terms of statistics, match reports and the like which is how its used here. I've not used them for claims along the lines of "greatest baseball game ever" or any other sort self-promotion/-aggrandizing.)

I've turned the Statistical leaders section into a sub-section of Regular season, as the stats are for that only. I've removed the sentence about "current as of..." and duplicated the reference in the tables themselves. I've also removed the flags and put abbreviations for the teams in as replacements. I also turned the list of teams in the Venues section into a table, and made the location information a little more accurate, now in the form "suburb (city)".

I haven't yet expanded any of the text with more detail or anything like that. Turned out I had less time to work on this than I thought. I might be able to give it a go later tonight, but if I do its only likely to be in dribs and drabs over the next week - I work straight through from tomorrow to next Monday before I get a day off. I'd ask that if you don't pass it at this stage just yet, that you put it on hold until then so I can continue work on it, rather than have to renominate it and wait another month or more for someone to look at it. Obviously that's up to you though. Afaber012 (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we can keep this review open for a while. –Grondemar 17:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken several looks at this and can't find a way to expand it with the sort of detail you're talking about... Not at a season level anyway. I've found sources that'll help with expanding the regular season and finals series articles, but they've already been split off from this article and are more suitable for the week-to-week coverage. I'll keep looking for other sources - there's one I'm expecting to be released in the next month or two - and I've asked for help/ideas at the Australian baseball task force but I don't have anything to add to it at the moment.

I'd say its time to give the article a "yeah" or "neah", and if its a "neah" I might try again later if I can sot this issue out. Afaber012 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reviewing the article, I've decided to

pass it as a Good Article. Good job and thanks for addressing my concerns in large part. –Grondemar 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the patience with this one. I always appreciate constructive criticism, and even though I wasn't able to act on everything you came back with, it wasn't because I thought you were wrong. Afaber012 (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Claxton Shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on 2010 Claxton Shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 Claxton Shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]