Talk:Chinese home run/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure to have this done by someone I've met personally ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 6, how do we justify citing a listserv post?

It's a listserv run by a notable academic organization, the American Dialect Society, that concerns itself with these things. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Jonathan Lighter, quoted and attributed, is the editor of the Historical Dictionary of American Slang. I think that makes him a recognized authority we can cite, even when he posts on a listserv. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sold on this, thanks. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added this inline with some more sources as well. And ... looking further down the listserv archive, I found that Lighter says he has found no evidence that Dorgan knew what a Chinese home run was, much that he had coined the term. So I have added that to the article, appropriately sourced, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The idea was to express a cheap home run as Chinese then represented what was cheap, such as their labor" Direct quote needs a direct citation.

It seems to me the quote may have been given to Dickson rather than Sheehan ... now that I've found the Sheehan article in the Times archives and added it as a source, Shulman isn't even mentioned there. However, the middle page of the Dickson entry, where the quote likely is, is not showing anymore. I wouldn't have quoted it if it hadn't been in there, but I will probably have to see if I can look at a hard copy.

"Four years later, when the Giants moved to San Francisco and left the Polo Grounds," The immediate preceding paragraph is in the 1910's...

Done I must have forgotten I had started that graf that way when I added the graf before it. Another reason why a second pair of eyes is always good ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...ichard Maney included the Chinese home run among the failings of the postwar game in a Times piece." Which Times, NY or LA?
"Writing in the Times as spring training" Again, and especially ambiguous this time around.

Done I suppose I may have thought, given the context, since mostly New York papers were being quoted, that it was the Gray Lady, but you're right—can't really assume everybody would figure this out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More soon. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we need to mention the Urban Dictionary at all.

Well, I tend to believe that we should do more inline attribution, especially where some doubt might exist as to the information, so the reader can understand that they should take it for what they think it's worth. And I was also worried when I wrote it that someone would see UD in the cite and think I was trying to sneak it in. The point of using it, as I think I recall saying in the DYK nomination, is to show that any modern usage is limited to the secondary meaning (In fact, after finishing the article I submitted the primary meaning to UD myself; they rejected it). Not to suggest that UD has any greater credibility as a source than demonstrating something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong article on a term I've never heard before. Good work. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think we're almost done, except for the one quote and for three instances where a paper is called just "the Times" in prose, instead of specifying whihc one (Usually I'd be fine with this, but you have mentioned both the NY and LA Times in this one article) Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: OK, whenever you're ready. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reread this earlier, all looks good. Promoting. Courcelles (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]