Wikipedia:Peer review/Babe Ruth/archive2

Babe Ruth

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA and would appreciate feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 Doing...: will do in stages – it's a long article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton

first batch of comments

Lead

• "Everyday player": perhaps the term has a specific meaning in baseball terminology. To British ears, unfortunately, it suggests run-of-the-mill, commonplace. I think the equivalent British term would be "all-round". I'm not asking that you change this, but be aware that it might be misunderstood by some British readers.

Tweaked. It is a baseball idiom.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Denied a job in baseball..." without explanation is a little mystifying. Perhaps add a few words of justification?

Early Years

• Reads as if the relatives owned Frederick Street
• "while at St. Mary's" – superfluous words
• "As a baseball player, making a large salary, he would adjust the collars of his shirts himself, rather than having a tailor do it." Confusingly worded within this paragraph. Suggest something along th lines of "When he became a baseball player..."
• There is a link, albeit to a poor-quality article, for Xaverian Brothers
• "George rarely was visited by his family..." – shouldn't this be "Ruth rarely was visited..." etc? You have not previously called him "George"

Reader better eased into that usage.

• Link catcher, shortstop
• "During his time there he would also play third base and shortstop, again unusual for a left-hander, and forcing him to wear mitts and gloves made for righties." Reads slightly awkwardly; maybe lose the second comma. And "righties" is listed in the OED as "N. American - informal" I am also dubious about the encyclopedic nature of "bender" which occurs a few lines further down.

Since "left-hander" is used twice in succession, I think "right-hander" would feel repeated, and given the lack of synonyms … "bender" I think is justified. It sums it up and is instantly understandable.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well...slang by its nature is readily understandable, but in an encyclopedia the norm should surely be more formal language. "Righties" could be "right-handed players", "bender" could be "drinking spree". While I accept the need to use the jargon of the sport to a considerable extent, does that justification really apply here? Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have, somewhat reluctantly, deleted bender. I'm not sure right-handed players avoids the issue of repetition, and the dexter/sinister sort of synonyms seem out of place.

• "Catholic" should be piped to Catholic Church
• "He was generous to the school..." St Mary's presumably, but needs to be specified

Baltimore Orioles

• The signing is dated in the text "early 1914", his first game being dated 7 March 1914, but the image, with Ruth in it fully kitted, is dated 1913.

The image is badly named. I'll look at the page. Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• "How it came to be that Dunn signed Ruth" seems a bit wordy: "The circumstances of the signing..." etc?
• "Others involve Brother Gilbert..." → "Other accounts involve Brother Gilbert..."
• General: if you are looking to trim the wordcount, I think this paragraph could be a candidate for a cull. The details of the various accounts of Ruth's initial signing don't seem particularly contentious and are questionably worthy of inclusion in a summary encyclopedia article.

Issue with Brother Gilbert mooted by removing him from the article. Part of the reason or that, is I found another Brother GIlbert story on this, supposedly from the good friar himself. Dunn's signing of Ruth is a base that must be touched in this article, but I agree it is overdone.

• "Although by late June the Orioles were in first place..." In first place in what?

In the league. That is an American sports idiom that it would be troublesome to fix, as it recurs in the article and avoiding its use would be difficult.

Developing star

• "...the Cleveland Naps (as the Indians were still nicknamed)" – I don't see much point in introducing the nickname, which adds unnecessary confusion to the parenthetic note.
• "Shore was given a start by Carrigan the next day, and won that and his second start and thereafter was pitched regularly. Ruth lost his second start, and was thereafter little-used." Three "ands" in the first sentence could do with some smoothing, as could the close repeat of "thereafter"

The repetition is is intentional as a contrast is being drawn between Shore and Ruth, so similar words are being used.

• It's a little hard to understand why Ruth's taking batting practice should offend his team-mates to the extent of their destroying his equipment. Am I missing something?

Pitchers are usually not very capable batters, accordingly their taking batting practice might not be considered as essential as those who play other positions, and are expected to be capable with their bat if they expect to keep their jobs. A pitcher need not be more than minimally capable with the bat to keep his job, therefore Ruth taking up some of the limited opportunity to take batting practice might be resented by his teammates. It would be especially presumptuous as he was a rookie.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Although Shore was initially the more effective pitcher, it is uncertain why Carrigan used Ruth so little." The answer to the question posed in the second part of the sentence seems to be provided by the first part.

First part of sentence deleted.

• "...his departure for Providence was delayed when Cincinnati Reds owner Garry Herrmann claimed him off waivers".Even with the help of links I can't work out what that means.

It has to do with the circumstances under which a player may be transferred from a major league club to a minor league one. I think withe link it will have to stand.

• "getting his first major league hit, a double." Explanation?

Linked.

• Why did Ruth think he was a year older than he was?

It is explained in a footnote. Perhaps wise to delete that portion of the sentence.

• "a 20 game winner" → "a 20-game winner"?
• "Until another game of that length was played in 2005, this was the longest World Series game..." Unless the 2005 game was longer than 14 innings, the 1916 game is still the (joint) longest World series game.

I tried various alternatives, that I do not think would help. It is a very fine point and I am inclined to let it stand. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More soon Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Next bit

Developing star

• "ERA" should be linked or explained at first mention in text

Emergence as a hitter

• "The runner was caught stealing" – no doubt immediately understood by baseball followers, but otherwise mystifying. Who was "the runner", and what was he stealing?
• Is there any known reason why Ruth wasn't conscripted? He was surely of military age?

That is explained in "Emergence as a hitter". The owners had contended that as baseball entertained the troops, the players should be exempt. When they were ruled against in 1918, they negotiated keeping the players out until the end of the season, which was shortened. After that, they had to either join the military or an essential war industry, as mentioned.

• "Ruth's effort gave his team a 3–1 lead in games, and the Red Sox won the Series, their third in four years, two days later, four games to two." Too many commas. My suggested version: "Ruth's effort gave his team a 3–1 lead in games, and two days later the Red Sox won their third Series in four years, by four games to two."
• "Before allowing the Cubs to score..." – is "allowing" the best verb here? It reads as though the Cubs needed his permission to score.

It is baseball lingo. Alternatives would be "surrendering" "permitting". All of the terms place responsibility on the pitcher.

• "...in a ballpark where the distance to right field was 215 feet (66 m)." The implication is that this was a smaller field of play than usual, but can this be made more explicit?

Word "only" added.

• "He broke it four days later..." → "He broke the record four days later"
• "...the Red Sox finished sixth..." – one can only judge the merit of this by knowing how many teams there were in the league. For example, sixth out of six is a lot worse than, say, sixth out of 18.

I will add a footnote. Done down to here, will resume later.

Sale to New York

• "Not all of the circumstances of how it was Frazee sold his best player to the Yankees are known..." A laborious construction. Possibly: "Not all the circumstances of Frazee's sale of his best player to the Yankees are known...", but personally I would cut down to "Not all the circumstances of the sale are known"
• Pipe-link Prohibition
• Link Polo Grounds

Linked in an earlier section.

• Do we know what Ruth's personal salary was when he joined the Yankees?

Yes, I will add something.

• "According to Marty Appel in his history of the Yankees, the sale of Ruth..." etc: it was of course the sale and purchase of Ruth that affected, repectively, the Red Sox and the Yankees. Or, perhaps, "the Ruth transaction"

I think "the transaction" is enough, there's no ambiguity.

New York Yankees 1920–23

• "...a feat believed only to have been accomplished by Joe Jackson" – insert "previously" after "accomplished"
• "Ruth hit his second home run on May 2, and by the end of the month had set a major league record for home runs in a month with 11, and promptly snapped it with 13 in June." Needs rwording to avoid two "ands". In normal parlance, records are broken rather than "snapped", which has a sportswriter feel about it.
• "Frazee and Barrow quickly made a deal with Frazee..." chop last two words?

First Frazee should have been Ruppert. Changed.

• I don't think it's encyclopedic to refer to Ruth as "The Babe"
• "Ruth's appearance in the 1921 World Series also led to a problem and triggered another disciplinary action" – why not, simply: "Ruth's appearance in the 1921 World Series triggered another disciplinary action"?

Sentence cut, it is purely introductory and things are fine without it.

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Done to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

3 more sections

1924–1925

• The repetition of "spring training" is unfortunately aligned in lines 2–3 of the second para.
• Although you have a link to the "premature obituary", Ruth is not among those listed there. Maybe you should add a line there?
• "had what would be his worst season" → "had his worst season"?

1926–1928

• "The St. Louis Cardinals had won the National League with the lowest winning percentage for a pennant winner to that point (.578) and the Yankees were expected to win easily." Insert "the World Series" after "to win".
• "deemed a defensive gem" – odd phrase, meaning not immediately clear: "deemed" by whom?
• Re the Sylvester story: are we to understand that Ruth did not, in fact, hit the supposed promised home run?

I think the point is it was made a lot more dramatic than it was. I've inserted that he did not know the boy, thus he did not have as great emotional involvement than the version in the movie, where the Babe visits and gets all teary eyed, and then goes out and hits the home run and puts little Johnny on the road to recovery. He did not even remember who Johnny Sylvester was, soon after. It's a base that must be touched in the Ruth story.

• I believe I've commented on the usage of "the Babe" before.
• "as much as" unnecessary. Not clear at what point they led by 17 games

The source does not specifically say.

• Who are "the A's"? I suppose the misplaced apostrophe is necessary, to avoid "the As", but is use of the nickname really necessary?

1929–1934

• I don't think that Babe Ruth's called shot should be hatted as the main article for this whole section, which covers five years of Ruth's career. The link in the paragraph describing the incident is enough.

I think it is likely enough that someone looking at this part of the article is seeking info about this to be worth a "further information". It's the only Really Big Babe Ruth Legend to be in this section.

OK, but call it "Further information" rather than "Main article", which is a misnomer. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Can you explain "half a World Series share"?
• "He hit the first home run in the game's history" – this should be clarified to "in the all-star game's history"
• "Ruth hit only .288 with 22 home runs..." – statistics repeated from earlier in the paragraph.

I shall be missing for a couple of days, but expect to be back on Friday. I should complete the review then or on Saturday. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a useful time off. I'm up to date, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My final pickings

Boston Braves (1935)

• "Rumors cropped up" – a bit informal. Perhaps: "There were rumors that Ruth..." etc
• "he was talked out of it by his wife, Claire" – this is the first mention of this lady; what happened to Helen?
• "Under way" is two words in all my dictionaries (evolved from "under weigh").
• "Ruppert had stated that he would not release Ruth to go to another team as a player". The words "go to" are redundant. Also, Ruth was obviously going to play for the Braves (as a gate attraction), so shouldn't this read " as a full-time player"?
• "Hoopla" is an informal term (BritEng equivalent "hoo-ha"), and clear enough in meaning, but I think beyond the borders of encyclopedic use.
• "five of New England's six governors" – link New England, and I suggest "six state governors" (you'd be surprised how many people over here assume that "New England" is a US state).
• "His conditioning" → "His condition". Also "little more" and "little else" in close conjunction
• "Ruth also found out that rather than give him a share of the profits..." I'd strengthen this to: "Ruth also found out that far from giving him a share of the profits..."

1935–1946

• "Larry MacPhail made it clear when Ruth was hired that he would not be considered for the job if manager Burleigh Grimes retired at the end of the season as expected." Needs a slight tweak to clarify which job he wouldn't be considered for,. e.g.: "Larry MacPhail made it clear when Ruth was hired that he would not be considered for the manager's job if, as expected, Burleigh Grimes retired at the end of the season."

Cancer and death (1946–1948)

• "His name and fame gave him access to experimental treatments, becoming one of the first cancer patients to receive both drugs and radiation treatment simultaneously." "Becoming..." is wrong here: "...and he was one of the first..." etc

Personal life

• The information "Ruth met Helen Woodford, by some accounts, in a coffee shop in Boston where she was a waitress" has been given earlier in the article.

It has, but quite a long time ago and I don't think the repeat that horrible as a lead-in

• You should mention year of Claire's death, as you do for Helen and stepdaughter Dorothy.
• I'm not sure that "Despite his marriages..." is the right way to introduce this anecdote, since we have little previous indication of the nature of these marriages, e.g. whether or not they were happy. "Despite" would make sense in the context "Despite his two happy marriages..." if that is the case, but otherwise it doesn't really work.

I've tried again.

Memorial and museum

• "Moved from old stadium to new were the tributes to Ruth housed in Monument Park, which remains in center field in the new ballpark, as it was in the old". I found the organisation of this sentence rather odd, and also hard to follow. I gather from the link that Monument Park was a museum in the old Yankee Stadium, and that the museum was re-established in the new stadium when it was opened. So I'd replace "remains" with "was re-established". From the monument's WP article: "When the Yankees moved to their new ballpark in 2009 a replica Monument Park was built beyond the center-field fences and the contents of the old transported over" – the whole contents of the museum, not just the tributes to Ruth, were moved from the old stadium to the new.

I've tried in a simpler manner.

• What does "the monument was in play" mean?

It means that a ball could conceivably hit it and still need to be retrieved by the fielder, though likely in vain by this point. This did not happen very often. Piped to ground rules

• Close repetition of "is located" in first line of the second paragraph

Contemporary impact

• Montville argues, Stout notes (both present); Creamer recorded, Wagenheim stated (both past). Is there a case for consistent use of the literary present? (later in the article we have "Montville noted)

I've tweaked that. Montville is now present tense except when definitely dated.. Stout is still with us.

• "Ruth's penchant for hitting home runs altered how baseball is played." Seems like a "legacy" statement rather than contemporary impact

Yes, but the game changed while he was still playing it.

• Ruth Cleveland has a WP article & can therfore be linked
• Likewise, the most recent events concerning the "Baby Ruth" candy bar are hardly "contemporary impact". I'd say the whole para could easily be transferred to the legacy section.

Legacy

• Is there any example of "Ruthian" having this meaning outside the baseball context?
• "...fictions about Ruth, and in the case of the latter film, the impression that Ruth was overweight throughout his career, rather than just in the later part of it." Well, he did weigh 260lb in 1925, which is hardly "the latter part of his career".

Nothing to add. This is a most affecting article, and needs only minor polishing, in my view, to meet the FA criteria. I found it absorbing enough barely to notice the length. The only area which I think needs careful watching is the dividing line between what is acceptable in baseball reporting, and what is admissable within a formal encyclopedia article. I have highlighted a few instances which I think need to be looked at again, but there are no major concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've addressed everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll chime in when I can as well. I've made a few minor changes in the References and External links sections for clean up. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And I just fixed three dab links. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. THe more the merrier.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll be clocking in as well, but not till BB has finished. Shall watch this review page and report for duty after Brian has done the hard work. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Coming on after the Boulton cavalry has swept through the battlefield is an excellent arrangement. I can just bayonet the wounded here and there.

• First lot, to end of Early years (leaving the lead till last, as I prefer to do):
  • "the date of his parents's marriage" – I continually bleat on about possessive forms – Jones's rather than Jones' – but even I boggle a bit at parents's.
  • "during his well-compensated baseball career" – compensation suggests making up for some unpleasantness rather than for playing a sport he enjoyed. Perhaps just "well-paid"?
  • "George rarely was visited by his family" – I'd replace the name with a pronoun, and perhaps "rarely was visited" might flow better as "was rarely visited"
  • "made for righties" – the meaning is abundantly clear, but I question if "righties" is encyclopaedic language. It certainly ain't in these islands, and I speak as a militant left-hander who notices these things.
• Baltimore Orioles
  • There are a lot of differing statements before we get to the cluster of citations 19, 20 and 21. Could they be conveniently distributed among the earlier individual statements?
  • "Dunn also became his guardian" – Does that mean his legal guardian, in loco parentis and all that?

There's enough doubt on this one that I'm removing it.

• • Second para: two "likely"s in two sentences.
  • "most center around" – there are those (of whom I am emphatically not one) who get aerated about "center around" on the grounds that it's a logical impossibility. I find it expedient to accommodate this fetish by writing "center on".
  • "him being referred to" – I'd make this a gerund – his being referred to – but that may just be me, in my wing-collar, pince-nez and spats.
  • "who was also dangerous at the plate" – does this mean dangerous as a batter? Just asking. I suppose you can reasonably assume that anyone reading a substantial article on a baseball player will understand (as I do not) the basic terms of the game.

Yes.

I have never seen a baseball match or read an article on the subject, but I can truly say I am enjoying this. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Second lot, down to end of Sale to New York

• Boston Red Sox (1914–1919)
  • "and was thereafter little-used" – I get in a dither about hyphens, but I'm reasonably sure you don't want one here.
  • "As a batter, in his major-league debut, Ruth went 0-for-2 against left-hander Willie Mitchell, striking out in his first at-bat, before being removed for a pinch hitter in the seventh inning" – just a mild English observation that there's a helluva lot of technical terms in that sentence. I'm not objecting, or even demanding a translation, but pray keep in mind that, e.g., a "pinch hitter" is as incomprehensible to those in Commonwealth Countries as "silly mid-on" is to you over there.

I know, but I'm loath to link every baseball term. It can't be toned down lest the ninety and nine not have their expectations fulfilled.

As it happens, the term "pinch-hitter" is pretty well known here and in the Commonwealth, to followers of limited overs cricket. A pinch-hitter is a fast-scoring batsman sent in early in an innings to knock the opening bowlers out of their stride. Sanath Jayasuriya of Sri lanka was famous for pinch-hitting in the 1996 Cricket World Cup. Chris Gayle is a current example for the West Indies. Perhaps the term has a similar connotation in baseball? Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Linked and point taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "quickly acquired tastes for food, liquor, and women" – I imagine he had a taste for food from a much earlier age than this, as we all do. Perhaps "fine food" or similar?
  • "hold onto first place" – this may be a transatlantic difference, in which case ignore, but I think "onto" needs to be two words in this context. (Isn't there a Gershwin song, "Hang on to me"?)
  • "Phillies ace Grover Cleveland Alexander" – I swear you make these names up, Wehwalt. We had a cricketer whose full name was William Gladstone Grace" – not!

I blame the parents.

• Emergence as a hitter
  • "The United States's entry" – as with earlier possessive apostrophes, above, I'm uncomfortable with the s's here. As a rough guide to myself I speak the phrase aloud, and then write what I say. In this case it isn't "Stateses", but perhaps you demur, in which case I withdraw.
  • "World War I" – I can't provide chapter and verse but I have an idea that linking to this war and WW2 is now regarded as WP:OVERLINK. I may be delusional, however.
  • "had many holes in the Red Sox" – suggestion (perhaps deliberate and mischievous?) of sewing or darning here. Perhaps "vacancies"?

I think this is where baseball lingo doesn't allow for alteration.

• • "Ruth hit .300" – showing my complete ignorance: is the period correct before 300?

Yes. It is a baseball statistic.

• • "Ruth pitched 29⅔ - I believe I have seen that the neat formatting of the fraction as here is not compatible with screen readers for visually impaired users. I just flag this us and do not press it, as I really don't know the facts.
    • Later: by courtesy of another peer reviewer at Robert Stephenson today I can now pass on to you the statement that for MOS:ACCESS reasons, {{frac|1|1|2}} → 29+2⁄3 is preferred. Tim riley (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sale to New York
  • "According to one of Ruth's biographers, Jim Reisler" – with my musical bias I enjoyed this paragraph, but I'm afraid I must question its importance in the whole long narrative, and I'd be inclined to consider blitzing it. Frightful cheek, and I'm quite prepared to be told to get lost.

It is, in my view, part of the Ruth legend, and has to be addressed in this article or people will put it in wrong. Generations of Boston young have been told of how Harry Frazee sold Babe Ruth to finance No, No, Nanette.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "Cynics have suggested" – does your source justify the word "cynics" here?

More anon. – Tim riley (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for soldiering through this. I will have to check on the cynics tomorrow, I fear.

The source uses the word "Cynics".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To the end of Boston Braves

• 1920–1923
  • "Ruth rewrote the record books" – a lively image, but not quite literal enough for an encyclopedia article, perhaps.
  • "flirting with first place" – ditto
  • "decimated" – Pedantry Alert: it may one day be universally accepted that "decimated" no longer means "reduced by one tenth", but not while I'm alive
  • "that broke on September 28" – which broke, as this is not a defining clause but a descriptive one
  • "but drew 1.2 million fans to the Polo Grounds" – is this strictly correct? Selling 1.2m tickets doesn't mean there were 1.2m fans – many, perhaps most, of those attending one match surely also attended most or all of the other matches for which the total 1.2m tickets were sold.

It's acceptable in American English in my experience.

Hmmm. Not wholly persuaded. Arithmetic is arithmetic. But I waive that point. I do not press it. I look over it. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A most kingly response.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "On March 6, 1922, Ruth signed …" – there are eleven "Ruth"s in this para, some of which could be replaced with a pronoun to the advantage of the flow
• 1924–1925
  • "binging" – correct spelling? Over here we'd write "bingeing", I think, but perhaps this is a US/UK thing.
• Boston Braves (1935)
  • "A's owner/manager" – have I missed an earlier explanation of what "A" stands for in this context?

A's is the common abbreviation for the Philadelphia Athletics' (now Oakland Athletics) team name (as shown by their team logo). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Last lot will be with you shortly. Tim riley (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will get back with these by Saturday as I am traveling right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Concluding comments from Tim

• 1935–1946
  • "Ruth played much golf…" – Of the six "Ruths" in this para I think you might with advantage change the fourth and sixth to "his"
• Cancer and death
  • "he may have been the first human subject" – a citation after this statement would be welcome.
  • "to the school's library" – to an English eye "school" seems an odd word for Yale University
  • "Ruth visited Yankee Stadium for the final time in his life" – I'd lose the last three words (assuming he hasn't visited the place as a ghost).

Probably, as Yankee Stadium is, or was, a very tradition-laden place. But that is where they held the public procession by his casket.

Very good point. Objection withdrawn. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "at St. Patrick's Cathedral, outside of which" – probably another US/UK thing, but "outside of which" looks very strange to me, rather than "outside which".
  • "Ruth rests with his second wife" – rather refined phrasing: how about "is buried"?

I tend to use that phrasing, I find "buried" too abrupt, and it avoids question on above/below ground.

• Personal life
  • "(1897—1976)" – very long dash here. Is it what you intended?
  • "the famous "bear hug"" – this reads as though it has been mentioned earlier, but I don't think it has
  • "among those of Yankee greats who have had their numbers retired" – this prompts even non-fans like me to wonder who the others were. Perhaps a footnote? Likewise for the recipients of monuments.

They are extensive enough that it would be perhaps better not to, and more than just players have monuments, i.e. Huggins, Steinbrenner, Ruppert … Plus one for 9/11 and a brace of Papal masses.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Contemporary impact
  • "meant more to fans than any runs they were responsible for" – in a quote, I know, but I don't understand how the fans could be responsible for any runs.

Some might disagree, see Jeff Maier, for example. Is it that unclear that the runs are being produced by the home runs?

I see! Now it is clear. A pity your source didn't write "any other runs". No matter. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• • "behind Michael Jordan.[209])" You close a bracket that you haven't opened earlier. Not sure where the opening might be intended, if at all.

That's my lot. This is a remarkable article. I struggled here and there with the technicalities of the game, but I'm confident anyone likely to open the page will be comfortable with them. On to FAC! – Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I've caught everything. Thank you for a most thorough review. Note to other reviewers: Please feel free to weigh in. I plan on nominating this for FAC whenever Oliver Bosbyshell clears, and it has two supports. I won't rush this PR, as it is an important topic, but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from GabeMc

Lead

• Beginning his career as a stellar left-handed pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, Ruth achieved his greatest fame as a slugging outfielder for the New York Yankees.

Although this is arguably undisputed, I would avoid using the word stellar and the phrase greatest fame; consider "promising" and "best known" or similar.

It's supported in the article his statistics and downright domination of the American League two years out of the reformatory speak for themselves and I don't think that it's a bad idea to put it in the lead

Well, "stellar" and "fame" are not as encyclopedic as they could be, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• In 1914, Ruth was signed to play minor-league baseball for the Baltimore Orioles. Soon sold to the Red Sox, by 1916 he had built a reputation as an outstanding pitcher who sometimes hit long home runs, the latter a feat unusual in the pre-1920 dead-ball era.

Consider: "In 1914, Ruth was signed to play minor-league baseball for the Baltimore Orioles, who sold his contract to the Red Sox. By 1916 he had built a ... " or similar.

No, the existing phrasing keeps all the Red Sox material together and make it clear he was playing for the Red Sox at the time the freezing you proposed people might wonder if he was traded

• he wanted to play every day

I'm not sure if the average reader realizes that pitchers don't play every game.

There is a limit to how far this article can be dumbed down to cater to those who know nothing about baseball without really annoying those who do know something about baseball I think this is one of the times where it should not be dumbed down

• allowed to convert to an outfielder

Consider: "allowed to change positions to outfielder" or similar.

• After that season, Ruth was controversially sold by Red Sox owner Harry Frazee to the Yankees.

Consider: "After that season, Ruth was sold by Red Sox owner Harry Frazee to the Yankees in a controversial deal for $100,000, the largest sum ever paid for a baseball player" or similar.

• He retired in 1935 after a short stint with the Boston Braves.

Consider adding a little bit here about why he retired, e.g. age, declining ability, injuries. Maybe there isn't anything that notable in particular, but it left me wondering why he didn't play until he dropped; although at 40 he is obviously no spring chicken for professional baseball, so maybe this point is self-explanatory.

I don't think that anyone will question it was necessary for a major-leaguer to retire in his 22nd season it is a game for the young

Well, 1) if he was shipped-off to the Braves at the end it was because his play had significantly declined. 2) the careers of many professional athletes are ended by something other than just old-age. I.e., if Babe was still hitting the ball without too much trouble he would have played longer, which leads me to ask if you think his 4 home runs in his last game are worth mentioning here; to show that he had remarkable skills even in his last game? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It was 3, and it wasn't his last game. Read ahead.

• legendary power

Though obviously true, I would avoid this outside a direct quote, especially for the lead since it seems a bit peacocky. Consider: "Ruth's reputation for power-hitting" or similar.

Its not so much about truth; "power hitting" has a specific meaning in baseball, which is why it should be linked to slugging percentage. Maybe this is meant only to refer to his hitting of long-ball HRs, but I think this will confuse die-hard baseball fans, who relate power to slugging. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some things that you can say in articles even though they are a bit peacocky, or the contrary when there is no dispute or doubt about it. There is no contrary point of view Babe Ruth was a great ballplayer

• His often reckless lifestyle was tempered by his willingness to do good by visiting children at hospitals and orphanages.

Consider: "He tempered his often reckless lifestyle with charitable work with children at hospitals and orphanages" or similar.

• He was denied a job in baseball for most of his retirement, most likely due to poor behavior during parts of his playing career.

Consider: "He was denied a position in professional baseball for most of his retirement, due in part to poor behavior during much of his playing career" or similar.

That would imply that there were other factors that caused him not to get the managers job. As far as we know it all came down to his poor behavior as a player as Barrow put it how can he manager other men he you can't manage himself

Then "due to poor behavior". Why is there need for the "most likely" if you are so certain about the point? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ruth is regarded as one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture, and is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time.

Consider: "Ruth is regarded as one of the most important sports figures in American culture, and is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time."

Early years

• a rough neighborhood

"Rough" isn't the best here; consider: "economically depressed", "impoverished", or "poverty stricken" or similar.

Rough is the best word that's what Pigtown was

But is it the most encyclopedic? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• George Jr. was born in the house of his maternal grandfather

The picture looks more like an apartment building; is this the same structure, because it looks too big to describe as a "house".

it's a rowhouse only the one on the end is where Ruth was born I believe they own some of the others as offices

My point here is that if its a multi-unit building then its not a house, its an apartment. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the slice on the end :)

• Many things are unknown about the circumstances of Ruth's childhood; even the date of his parents' marriage is undiscovered.[4] Few other personal details regarding his parents are extant.

This seems a little verbose and jarring to me, consider: "The circumstances of Ruth's childhood are unclear and little is known about his parents" or similar.

• when young George was a toddler

This is redundant; omit "young".

He had a father, whose actions are being talked about right there.

Then why not refer to little George as George and big George as Ruth? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• by the time he was six, his father had a saloon with an upstairs apartment at 426 West Camden Street.

Replace "had" with "owned".

i'm not aware that he owned it

So, does had imply he was a manager or business owner? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Manager

Then why not: "by the time that he was six, his father managed a saloon"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Details of why he was sent, at the age of seven, to St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys, a reformatory and orphanage, are similarly scanty.

Consider: "Its unclear why, but at the age of seven he was sent to the reformatory and orphanage St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys.

• Babe Ruth, as an adult, suggested that not only was he running the streets and rarely attending school, he was drinking beer when his father was not looking.

Consider: "Ruth later suggested that he was running the streets and rarely attending school, and drinking beer when his father was not looking" or similar.

• Stories exist that after a violent incident at the saloon, the city authorities decided the environment was unsuitable for a small child. At St. Mary's, which he entered on June 13, 1902, he was recorded as "incorrigible"; he would spend much of the next twelve years there.[5][6][7]

Consider: "After a violent incident at the saloon, the city authorities decided the environment was unsuitable for a small child. He entered St. Mary's on June 13, 1902, where he was recorded as "incorrigible"; he would spend much of the next twelve years there" or similar.

• a substantial amount of time was devoted to work

Consider: "they were also expected to work" or similar.

• The boys, aged 5 to 21, did most work around the facility

Consider: "The boys, aged 5 to 21, worked mostly around the facility" or similar.

• The food was simple, and the Xaverian Brothers who ran the place insisted on strict discipline; corporal punishment was omnipresent

Consider: "The food was plain and the overseers of the facility, the Xaverian Brothers, insisted on strict discipline, which included the frequent use of corporal punishment" or similar.

• Ruth's nickname among the boys was "Niggerlips", as he had large facial features and was darker than most boys at the all-white reformatory.[8]

The syntax here seems to imply that the nickname made sense, consider: "Ruth had large facial features and was darker than most boys at the all-white reformatory, which led them to give him the nickname "Niggerlips" or similar.

• Ruth was sometimes allowed to rejoin his family, or was placed at St. James's Home, a supervised residence with work in the community, but he was always returned to St. Mary's.

1) Rejoin → Visit? 2) What does "a supervised residence with work in the community" mean. 3) Its not clear why he was at times sent to St. James's Home.

A halfway house

But why was it necessary for him to leave St. Mary's for any periods of time? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The idea was, in today's parlance, they were trying Ruth in less restrictive alternatives, that is, with his family, or at St. James's. Obviously the behavior problems continued.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• his mother died when he was 12 and by some accounts, he was permitted to leave St. Mary's only to attend the funeral.

Again, this is confusing because the previous sentences make it sound like he was at time allowed to leave St. Mary's, so what was different this time?

we don't know for sure these are from accounts for example by his classmates or the brothers after he became famous

I'm sure that's true, but as it reads now its confusing. Were the Brothers abusive in that they let him leave St. Mary's for baseball and reasons, but not to attend his mother's funeral? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not to be allowed to join in the family grieving in private, to give and receive comfort to his father and Mamie. At the very least it is stern. And Ruth was 18 when they let him join outside teams. No doubt they saw it as an opportunity for him to have exposure to the outside world, under controlled circumstances

-Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Brother Herman

Is his full name known?

While we know Brother Mattihias' last name apparently this one is not insources

Let's close through so no one cared

• The older man became a mentor and role model to George

George → Ruth?

in consider it pretentious to constantly call a child by his last name

Right, but Wikipedia conventions are that we don't use the given name unless its to avoid confusion with other family members. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• but by 1913 at age 18 was allowed to leave the premises

Why was he detained at St. Mary's past legal adulthood?

at that time the age of majority was 21

• He received several newspaper mentions, for both his pitching prowess and an ability to hit long home runs.[17][18]

Consider: "His pitching prowess and hitting ability earned him several newspaper mentions" or similar.

• Ruth became a shirtmaker, and was also proficient as a carpenter.

Consider: "Ruth became a shirtmaker and a proficient carpenter" or similar.

• The boys, aged 5 to 21

5 → five?

I think it would look very odd to switch from words to numerals in the middle of the phrase

More later. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The ones I'm going to do and the ones I'm not are about equally divided I think. Possibly we have different ways of writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you disagree with more of my comments than you agree with I won't bother finishing the review, but best of luck at FAC! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

These things happen. Thanks for your review. Your Pepper article is excellent, by the way, and I look forward to its FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)