Talk:History of the New York Yankees/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 00:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As one of the five oldest noms, I'll give reviewing this a shot. Due to both the subject and the volume of material though, this review will take a while to complete. Wizardman 00:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll split this by sections; here's what I found so far:

Lead

• No issues

1901-02

• "The team took the Orioles' place; it is unclear if the New York club was an expansion team or if the Baltimore team was relocated." While the article is plenty long, I'm wondering if this last part should be delved into a bit more detail, especially since I have read things on both sides of late. Granted, adding anything more would likely be just noting what authors like Appel or Thorn have said, but it might be worth a note.
  • I was considering adding more on this, but didn't want to bloat the article any more. A note seems like a good idea, and I've added one with the views of several parties, including Appel and Thorn. A fair number of the sources discussing the issue are not that reliable, and the ones that are seem to support the recent Baseball-Reference split of the franchise's history. If you think more is needed on the other side, let me know and I'll add what I can from other authors. That looks like the best I can do with the sources available. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

1903-12

• "AL pennant (league championship)," since there's a link, I'm not sure that the parentheses and note is needed.
  • Removed the parenthetical note. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• "this is the highest single-season total since 1901 and an AL record." since the AL was founded in 1901, wouldn't this be redundant?
  • Yes, and that is also trimmed now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

1913-20

• "With a new manager, Frank Chance, the Yankees had a 57–94 record and were one win from finishing last in the AL" I see what it's saying, but it took me a couple reads to figure it out. Maybe reword to "one game ahead of last place" or something similar.
  • Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• "acquiring elite pitcher Carl Mays " rm elite
  • Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

1921-28

• Would it be worth noting Ruth and Gehrig's MVP wins in 23/27?
  • Since a few of the later Yankees MVPs are mentioned, the awards won by Ruth and Gehrig probably are worth noting. I added mentions for both years with new sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Ruth had 3 home runs and a .625 batting average in the Series, while Gehrig batted .545 with 4 home runs." the single digit numbers should be written out
  • Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

1929-35

• No issues. As a side note though, I had to look up Ruffing's Boston record myself because I seriously thought 39-96 was an error.

1936-47

• "before his death, he sold Barrow shares of team stock," Barrow his shares, just to make it read slightly better.
  • Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• "17 more than the second-place side in the AL" second-place team
  • Also done. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Immediately after the end of the Series, MacPhail resigned from the Yankees" Can an owner just resign like that? This is probably asking for too much info for the article like with the Orioles issue above, but I feel like we're missing part of the story when it's written as simply as that. It looks like, per his article, the other two bought out his part of the ownership; simply noting that might clear things up.
  • Actually, the resignation was self-announced by MacPhail. You're right that the buyout was the truly important part, so I rephrased the sentence to include this short version of the story. The long version is that MacPhail made a number of scenes at a World Series victory party which would be very entertaining to write about, but are probably too much detail for an already long article. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1948-56

• No issues

1957-64

• This is very nitpicky, but could you put a {{-}} at the end of this section so the next one is aligned to the left? 65-72 is indented despite the section and picture ending at the same place.
  • I've never tried to make such an edit before, but I think I did this correctly. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• "A new expansion team was added to the National League and immediately became popular among fans." not a big fan of this sentence. If it feels necessary to keep in then I'd at least add a cite. Also, were they taking fans away from the Yankees? If not then I'm not sure if this part is necessary.
  • I decided to just drop the entire Mets part. It is somewhat tangenital, and some trimming of an article this size isn't a bad thing. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1965-72

• No issues

1973-76

• "New York entered their 1973 season as favorites to win their division," Is there more to that? The previous paragraphs note that the Yankees were on the downturn pretty clearly and had been struggling, so to suddenly be the favorites threw me.
  • They actually were favored heading into 1973 (I found multiple other sources saying so), but this is inconsistent with earlier paragraphs and explaining it properly would add some bloat. Therefore, I cut the favorites bit out. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1977-81

• Is the Mr. October nickname for Reggie Jackson after the five HRs worth a mention? I'd consider it an important enough part of lore to throw in a half-sentence at the end of that first paragraph, rather than the blurb in 82-95, which feels like it would belong here rather than there.
  • You're right about the importance and weight. I added a half-sentence here and removed the nickname from Steinbrenner's Winfield criticism. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'm wondering if the article pushes the Martin-Jackson rivalry a little too much, given that it's in multiple paragraphs. Yes it was a big part, but I'd perhaps takeout the second paragraph stuff, since we get the idea after the first.
  • I removed some of the second paragraph stuff, leaving the mention of the comments that led to Martin's resignation. That seems important enough to keep, given what followed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

1982-95

• "the team's finances were not significant harmed, " significantly
  • Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• " Buck Showalter, who increased the playing time given to young prospects such as Williams." While true, having it in the 91-92 area before any of those players made their debut feels a bit out of place. I'd just cut it to young prospects since that gets the idea across.
  • Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

1996-01

• "services of third baseman Scott Brosius, second baseman and leadoff batter Chuck Knoblauch, and starting pitcher Orlando Hernández" I'd just keep it to the positions, rming leadoff hitter. Technically it's fine, but it comes across as a run-on even though it's not.
  • Removed the three words as suggested. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• "After the 1998 season, fan favorite Wells was traded" rm fan favorite
  • Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

2002-08

• Is Alex Rodriguez's record contract worth noting, particularly given that their big payroll is a major part of this section?
  • Sure. I wasn't sure which contract you meant; I assumed it was the contract he signed in 2007 and added a sentence on that.
• On the above note, I'd take out "Despite paying $209 million in player salaries," since we get the idea that they are a big-payroll team earlier in the section.
  • Fair enough. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

2009-Pr

• "George Steinbrenner died in July 2010, during the middle of the season." the middle of the season is redundant.
  • Removed the latter half of the sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's everything. A long article, but a very informative and detailed one. Article is now on hold, and I'll pass it when the remaining issues are fixed. Wizardman 00:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through it. I know that it's long, but a comprehensive article on the Yankees' history is going to be longer than a lot of other sports articles and the review resulted in some cuts. There should be responses to everything above; if there's any further work required, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'll gladly pass the article as a GA. Should you venture to FAC with this, let me know and I'll likely support it. Wizardman 23:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)