Jump to content

Talk:Sahlen Field

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Coca-Cola Field)
Former good articleSahlen Field was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2022Good article nomineeListed
November 5, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 2, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the six highest Minor League Baseball season attendance counts were all at Sahlen Field?
Current status: Delisted good article


GeoHack Coordinates

[edit]

The latitude and longitude coordinates listed are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.33 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coca-Cola Field. 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) 02:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

[edit]

It's great to see so much more content and attention being given to this article, most likely thanks the situation with the Blue Jays. Some suggestions, though, are to watch the organization and the overall detail of content. Right now this is a huge list of what seems like every event to ever happen at the ballpark, which really isn't appropriate for an article like this. Articles about venues like this should highlight certain major events that have happened in the facility and summarize the key tenants and their general history at the building. Right now, everything is listed chronologically, making it difficult to follow. Concerts should likely be their own subheading (common for most stadium and arena articles), highlighting some of the most prominent acts and performers to play there, rather than an entire schedule (avoid making a detailed table for every concert, though, which has been placed in many stadium articles). For the Bisons' summer concerts, for instance, those should be summarized as a whole, like the general years it has run and some of the most prominent acts to play in them over time; same for the other regular concerts that have been held there. Listing every year's performers is excessive detail (see WP:FANCRUFT and WP:SCOPE). There should also be a separate naming rights section since this park has had so many names in its history, plus a section for "other events" like the Wing festival and other baseball-related events like All-Star games. Key thing to remember in articles like this is the focus of the article: the ballpark, not every event to ever happen at the ballpark. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias summarize knowledge, rather than try to contain all of it." --JonRidinger (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Right now, everything is listed chronologically, making it difficult to follow." Read that back to yourself and hang your head. With stadiums I look to the gold standard of articles like Yankee Stadium...which are written like trash and have pages and pages of worthless information. For example, I doubt you want me to include 10 paragraphs on the dining room dimensions and food choices of the in-stadium restaurant. But I don't care about Yankee Stadium, so I'm trying to set an example by making a good-looking article with proper citations about something I *do* care about - major events, major music acts and notable baseball games are all that's included. I already received a barnstar from an admin earlier today. Good news for you - there's not much more juice that can be squeezed as far as new information on Sahlen Field, so it won't be getting much larger.TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JonRidinger—the article could use some reorganization. I'd move away from the sections using the ballpark's past names, and move toward sections including, "Baseball", "Concerts", and "Other events". Group all the Bisons' info (top attendance, Triple-A All-Star Games, etc) in one section. In a concerts section, write a good paragraph each for the Bisons' post-game concerts and different radio station concerts. "Other events" could cover wrestling, the Goo Goo Dolls video, etc. Another useful section would be something like "The facility", which would cover the park's construction, renovations, etc. Sections such as these would make it easier for the reader to find what they're looking for. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with NatureBoyMD (talk · contribs). That's generally how stadium and other facility articles are organized instead of a chronological log of every event that has ever happened there. To TheNewMinistry (talk · contribs), it's more a matter of organizing the info logically based on other articles and the general guidelines given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force. That's not to say your efforts to expand the article were in vain or unappreciated. The content and sources you added gives editors a lot to work with. If you want to see good examples of articles to emulate, the Yankee Stadium article isn't a good option as you have noticed. Instead, PNC Park and Herschel Greer Stadium (both FA-class), along with Progressive Field (GA-class) are ballpark articles to look at as those articles give a general idea of what the organization and scope for an article like this one should look like and have been through the evaluation processes to be rated "Featured" (FA-class) or "Good" (GA-class). Being properly cited is definitely a big part of making an article good, but it's not the only part by any means. See WP:BETTER. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh those articles are pretty. I've took your advice and started reworking the article. I'll do something about the remaining long concert artist lists, but not sure what yet. I'm thinking maybe just list the headliners for the festivals, but I'm not sure if that information is available for every year - I'll have to dig deep. Thank you both for your help. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dunn Tire" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dunn Tire. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 11#Dunn Tire until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Aᴋʀᴀʙʙıᴍ talk 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sahlen Field/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all tagged appropriately.

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • sportshistorycollectibles.com
    • buffaloah.com
    • statscrew.com
    • daktronics.com
    • wrestlingdata.com
    • wrestleheat.com
    • wrestling-news.net
    • ftfnext.com -- appears to be a fan-run site (this is your FN 219, which you have listed as "lax".
    • rotofanatic.com
    • buffalowing.com
  • The following are generally unreliable sources and should not be cited in most cases:
    • buffalochronicle.com (see here for discussion)
    • Twitter
    • Youtube
    • Flickr

I'll go through the article itself next, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I replaced everything with reliable sources and removed original research where no other source could be found. FTF Next is a legitimate streaming platform that airs live sporting events and licenses old sporting events for streaming. I only cited it because it had the final score for the lacrosse exhibition (believe it or not finding results for a poorly attended lacrosse game is rather difficult). Rotofanatic is weird as it was a very well-written fantasy baseball site, but unbeknownst to me it must have went under and now redirects to malware. I fixed the reference with an archived version of the page. Thanks so much for reviewing this! 07:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look this evening at what you've done with the sources, and strike anything dealt with in the list above. One general comment from just looking through the article without reading it thoroughly yet: I think giving the scores of the individual games played there, and similar information, is excessive detail. Take a look at the article on Lumen Field, a stadium in Seattle; it summarizes the various events that have taken place there, and gives the scores of major events only. Other events are not given in detail. The Lumen Field article also manages to assemble its information into narrative paragraphs; as you currently have the article structured, parts of it read like lists. I will look again tonight, but I think the article as a whole is structured as a series of facts listed in consecutive sentences, without enough connecting tissue or narrative structure. More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Group consensus on the talk page was for the Sahlen Field page to be reorganized, with PNC Park given as a specific example (also a major league baseball stadium). I took that idea and ran with it, and the PNC Park article is extremely sparse with detail to begin with. Open to suggestions.16:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think PNC Park is a pretty good model, but if you compare the two you can see it's much less detailed in some ways, and I think that's a good thing. Its "Concerts" section (unsourced, unfortunately) simply lists some (not all, I would think) of the bands who have played there. In comparison, you have eight short paragraphs with a profusion of names and dates. I don't think you have to cut it to a single sentence, as in the PNC Park article, but I think it shouldn't be more than two or three sentences. Similarly, compare the baseball sections -- a few notable events listed, with dates and results, in the PNC Park article; you have eight or ten times that much information. The professional wrestling section in this article could be reduced to two or three sentences, with a link to a separate article about them, which you could create with the sourced information you have here. The problem is mainly in the sections that list events; the other sections could probably use some tightening too, but I would suggest trimming down the events first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No can do - Ballpark Brawl was previously a standalone page but was deleted back in 2007 as the promotion wasn't deemed noteworthy of its own page. I figured the information deserved a home...somewhere. And this seemed like the best page. The post-Bisons game wrestling shows essentially took over for the post-Bisons game concerts in 2003 as the team's "get a non-traditional crowd to a baseball game" marketing ploy. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I would fail the article in that case -- not just because of the wrestling, but the other detailed lists. If you're unwilling to trim this material, I think the best thing to do is for me to fail this article, citing GA criterion 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", and you can then work on it or not as you wish. Of course I can't guarantee the article would pass even if you do decide to trim it -- I have not given the article a full review yet. Let me know what you'd like to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I'll trim it out. I'm just saying that the Ballpark Brawl material would never end up as its own article. Give me a bit. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great; glad to hear it. No hurry -- I have several other GA reviews going at the moment and can come back in a few days or whenever you're ready for me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed a lot and am pretty happy with it. Incorporated some events into the History section where appropriate. Adjusted the photo layout accordingly. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I'll take a look, probably tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass. I've struck the sources from the list of questioned sources above and will have another look at rotofanatic.com. Notes below to follow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think rotofanatic.com is OK to use, but I think we're quoting too much -- there's no reason we can't paraphrase and shorten what they said.
  • There are some uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs in the "Professional baseball in Buffalo, 1877–1970" section. However, I think this section is too long -- this history is covered elsewhere. All we need to know for Sahlen Field is that there were prior baseball stadiums, with a mention of their names, and the reason for the construction of Sahlen Field. I would think that after an initial sentence mentioning that professional baseball first was played in Buffalo in 1877, at Riverside Park, we could say something like "and several minor and major league teams followed over the next century, including <short list>. Then jump to the paragraph that currently starts "In April 1968".
  • " drawing record crowds with innovative promotional tie-ins": suggest cutting "innovative" as promotional.
  • That's another long quote from Pete McMartin. Can we trim it a bit?
  • Can we join up some of the short paragraphs throughout the article? This is not really necessary for GA, which only requires the prose to be clear, but it makes for a jerky reading experience. It suffers a bit from WP:PROSELINE; anything you can do to smooth the transitions between the facts listed in chronological order, and turn it into more of a flowing narrative, would really help.
  • There's an uncited sentence in "Alterations and seating reduction, 1996-2019".
  • "Rich Jr. moved his Class A Short Season Jamestown Jammers after attendance dwindled at Russell Diethrick Park. The team resumed play as the West Virginia Black Bears in June 2015." Why is this relevant? Did the Black Bears play at Sahlen Field?
  • "and it was renamed Sahlen Field for the 2019 season": is it still named Sahlen Field?
  • Uncited sentence in "Transportation access".

Generally the prose is pretty clean; it's straightforwardly written. Most of the above is minor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it now - I'll let you know when everything's kosher. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's been addressed - feel free to take another look when you can. TheNewMinistry (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good -- passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by CSJJ104 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Sahlen Field
Sahlen Field

Improved to Good Article status by TheNewMinistry (talk). Self-nominated at 17:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Newly promoted GA - long enough, well cited, neutral, and no copyvio issues. QPQ not needed. Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and works at this scale. I think that the field having the top 6 season attendance records could be a punchier hook (though the wording might need adjusted) - @TheNewMinistry:, how do you feel about that? That information is in a table in the article, though I think it'd be worthwhile being in the prose as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

[edit]

TheNewMinistry, I realized after I promoted this that I should have been doing spotchecks, so I have done a few checks now. I came up with a couple of questions:

  • FN 32 cites "The same design firm would later bring this concept to Major League Baseball with Oriole Park at Camden Yards." As far as I can see, the source says Pilot Field inspired Camden Yards, but it doesn't say this design firm had anything to do with it.
  • FN 33 cites "The baseball field itself would feature a Kentucky Bluegrass playing surface and have dimensions that were designed to mirror those of pitcher-friendly Royals Stadium." I don't see anything in the source about the grass or about Royals Stadium being pitcher-friendly.
  • FN 79 cites "Buffalo was withdrawn as a candidate for the 1998 Major League Baseball expansion, and franchises were awarded to the Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays in March 1995." The source confirms the new franchises but doesn't say Buffalo's candidacy was withdrawn.
  • FN 167 cites "The venue has also hosted national music festivals. Budweiser Superfest took place at the venue on July 7, 1989." The source doesn't name the show as the Budweiser Superfest.
  • FN 187 cites "The cozy field dimensions of 325 feet to left field and 371 feet to left-center aid the number of home runs hit in those directions." The source only says it's hitter-friendly, and doesn't mention left field or left-centre.
  • FN 206 cites "The Heritage Room also contains rotating exhibits of memorabilia that honor Buffalo's baseball history". The source doesn't say the exhibits are rotated.

I checked FNs 52, 79, 102, 114, 123, 134, and 145 as well, so this is 5 out of 12 that aren't properly supported by the citations. That's quite a big proportion. Can you fix these and take a look through the other citations in the article, and let me know when you think it's ready for another spotcheck? I really should have done this before promoting the article, so I apologize for the late notice on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheNewMinistry, just checking in to see if you've had a chance to look at these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sahlen Field/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am nominating this for reassessment because a spotcheck of the sources find five which did not support the text, out of twelve checked. That's an alarmingly high rate. I think all the sources should be rechecked against the text of the article. Noting also that I was the GA reviewer and failed to do a spotcheck; when I realized that I returned after the promotion and spotchecked the article. The nominator has been inactive for a month; I will notify them and also the baseball WikiProject. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as delist; no activity. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahlen_Field&oldid=1210771226"