Talk:History of the Nashville Sounds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on, will post review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Prior professional baseball in Nashville

"played their home games at Athletic Park, later to be called Sulphur Dell", I'm not a fan of two links in the same sentence directing to the same page. At the very least, Athletic Park needs to be piped to avoid the redirect.
I would also say "later to be called" sounds a bit clunky. Maybe simply "later renamed Sulphur Dell"?
"and later nicknamed the Nashville Vols", the Vols page would suggest that it was their official name rather than a nickname?

I unlinked Athletic Park, changed the wording per second bullet, and applied similar changes to Vols name. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a team and building a ballpark

"observed the success Chattanooga experienced", I'm a bit confused about what can be described as success for a town from acquiring a sports team. Is it referring to sporting success or something like increased tourism? I think this could be clarified slightly.
Is star a WP:PEACOCK word perhaps for Twitty and the others? I'd probably list them simply as musicians or singers depending on the best fit.
Do we know why the cost of construction on the stadium tripled?

I clarified success at the turnstiles in Chattanooga, reworded from "stars", and added details on cost. The $300K–$500K cost seems to have been what Schimttou's architect friend estimated the project to cost. This may have been a rough estimate made before any plans were drawn up. I added the range of submitted bids ($900K–$1.2M) which gets the cost closer to the final expense. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Reds (1978–1979)

Explain the MVP abbreviation in its first use here > Most Valuable Player (MVP).

Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees (1980–1984)

"One important highlight of the first half of 1984", I'd suggest dropping the important here. Highlight would already suggest it was a notable event and important could be considered a matter of opinion.
Unlink Birmingham Barons (fourth paragraph) and Knoxville Blue Jays (last paragraph). Per WP:OVERLINK, links should generally only appear once after the lead and both of these teams are linked prior to this.

Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Reds (1987–1992)

Unlink Chattanooga Lookouts, per WP:OVERLINK. Linked previously in the article.
"Greer Stadium, once one of the best stadiums in Triple-A baseball", best could be taken in many ways I believe, technologically advanced, best atmosphere, etc. Can this be phrased differently to reflect why it was regarded so highly?

I unlinked the Lookouts and indicated player and fan amenities are what made Greer regarded so well. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago White Sox (1993–1997)

Repeat link of Birmingham Barons fifth paragraph.

Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Pirates (1998–2004)

"The Sounds clinched the American Conference Eastern Division title, giving them their first playoff berth in the PCL and first postseason appearance since 1994", doesn't appear to be supported by a source?

Added reference. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Brewers (2005–2014)

"Steve Posner, and Frank Ward", stray comma in this sentence?

That's a serial comma ("Masahiro Honzawa, Steve Posner, and Frank Ward"), a style which I've used throughout the article. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm having trouble accessing refs 9 and 18. Are they working for you?

I've archived #9 ([1]). 18 works for me ([2]). NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 63 appears to have expired.

This one works for me, too ([3]). NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 73 links to the wrong site, appears to be a repeat of the previous ref.

Fixed ([4]). NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 151 and 149 appear to have expired.

Both of these are working for me; 151 ([5]) & 149 ([[6]]). NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've found, no major issues. A very impressive article, I enjoyed reading it as I went. Judging by your editing history, I'm guessing this is simply the stepping stone up to FA that this article probably deserves. Placed on hold for now. Kosack (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: I have made the changes indicated in my comments above. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be addressed. Thanks for your comments. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't load ref 18 but I'll AGF that it's working. The last two are now working for me bizarrely. When I load ref 63, it appears to direct me to a European web address for the site rather than American, which is perhaps the reason. All of the other points have been addressed, this definitely meets the GA criteria. A nice piece of work, promoting. Kosack (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]