Talk:Moneyball (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moneyball (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Moneyball (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama 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.
Review: November 16, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Baseball 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.

Team

Which A's team is this film about, the 2001 team, or the 1992 team? Both made the playoffs, but I can't find out which team this book/film is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.32.234 (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001. And 2002. Moneyball talks mostly about the 2002 season and draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brand

I was trying to find more information about the actual person Peter Brand, but he doesn't exist. Maybe the first paragraph could say "[...] GM Peter Brand (a fictional character played by Jonah Hill), faced [...]"; maybe even a reference to the Cast notes there? --82.171.13.139 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brand's character evolution should be clear by now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Cast notes now mention Brand is a composite character; thanks. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Anybody mind if I nominate this for GA in a few days, after I make some final improvements? Let's promote this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Late reply, but I am about to do so right now. Rusted AutoParts 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts, well, I clearly forgot all about it, so have at it! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moneyball (film). 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130917183239/http://www.wpbf.com/entertainment/29275448/detail.html to http://www.wpbf.com/entertainment/29275448/detail.html#ixzz1mVShQ8lJ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bold" edit needs some discussion

Complete removal without any discussion is a little bit too much. There were many references there and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we have space for accuracy issues like that. CABF45 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was appropriate to remove content that was unsourced or did not reference the film (like baseball-reference.com), but content that assesses the real-life portrayals and other details in the film should be included. It seems like there are articles like [1], [2], [3] that should be referenced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for content along those lines to be included if someone wants to integrate it properly with proper sources, context, encyclopaedic prose, etc, and not just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. (Nb.: CABF45 seems to have arrived here after auditing my recent contributions following a disagreement at Uncut Gems.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a pattern in your edits of too many barely explained deletions.

I was just questioning the complete removal of a section, which definitely helps readers better understand the movie. We have "citation needed" tags before resorting to complete removal. CABF45 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I delete things that don't meet Wikipedia policy. I think I was clear about why in the edit summary: boldy deleting. much of this is uncited original research or WP:SYNTHESIS. some is clearly trivia. none is placed in a context that makes it apparent why any of it is important or encyclopaedic. And Wikipedia doesn't typically advocate to keep things without citations - see WP:CITE and WP:BURDEN. Popcornfud (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I find the section valid and have restored the content that was supported by reliable sources. Additional sources are available to work into this section too. I'm fine with excluding the other content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, thanks for that, great improvement over the previous version. Popcornfud (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If every sentence needs a reliable source, we could remove much of Dutch Empire or nitrogen (and we have a lot of less referenced articles than these). Just give the original editors a chance to add sources, that's all I was suggesting. Wikipedia also has Template:Better source needed for a reason.
BTW Erik, thanks for your input. CABF45 (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moneyball (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Right cite (talk · contribs) 02:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will check this out. Right cite (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 16, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good writing style, good size of the intro section, good choice of organization structure, good selective use of quotations, overall a good quality article.

2. Verifiable?: I see some comments on the talk page about citations here, and I agree with that discussion. Great job with the citations even for that small bit of factual info in the Cast section. Everything is cited. Even the Accolades is cited even though it has its own page, that is really good to have it cited here as well!

3. Broad in coverage?: Like I said above, good structure, good flow, I remember seeing this film itself in theaters and it is good to see a high quality discussion of not just plot, cast, and reception, but also a good discussion with sources of the production process behind the film as well.

4. Neutral point of view?: Even with the high amount of positive reception, the reception section still gives some time to negative criticism and so yes it is neutral and presented from NPOV.

5. Stable? I'm not seeing any major issues with stability here, so far so good.

6. Images?: Everything looks good, the fair use rationale on the movie poster is very good. However, I would caution about File:Brad pitt 2020.jpg, not sure that is really that particular uploader's image, but I checked the metadata, I'm just not sure. But it is asserted as free use and we could accept it on good faith from that user for the time being.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Right cite (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Batman1009 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Isabella.mitrow (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]