Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers/archive1

List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting pitchers

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hopful I can get this to FL status. BUC (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid list. My #1 thing is that the Baseball-Reference refs and a good ways back on the Retrosheet refs list attendance figures for these games, why not include that info? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it has nothing to do with the starting pitcher. BUC (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zambrano's ref as the most recent Opening Day starter should really just be a Baseball-Reference page like the rest, the Yahoo ref adds nothing useful. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I originally included the Yahoo ref because B-R hadn't been updated for Opening Day 2009 yet. Rlendog (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers, perhaps a little more detail on the starts in the WS winning years? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure there is much to add. The Cubs only won 2 WS (admittedly like the Phillies) but both years had the same Opening Day starter and were earlier than pitcher decisions are readily available. I suppose I could discuss the WS loss years, but there were more of those than the Phillies had, including several before decisions are available, which I think would make such a discussion clumsy. Rlendog (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I think it's at least notable enough to mention Overall was the opener in both WS years. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd from last sentence. :) Rlendog (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also per the Phillies list I would think about including the records for some of the more prolific opening day starters, at least Corcoran. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Jenkins' record, as the record holder. Going deeper seems to be another situation where the Cubs are more awkward than the Phillies. Six Cubs share the #2 spot, and three of those are before I have access to all the decisions. And I personally think the Phillies wording for Alexander is already awkward, since I am not sure the information on the decisions is truly not available (there may be on some microfische of 19th century newspapers in some library) although they certainly aren't readily available. Rlendog (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thank you for your comments. I'll take a look at these, but I wanted to explore the first comment a bit more. Some of the FL Opening Day starter lists contain the attendance figures, others don't. I've always excluded them because I am not sure what they add to a list that primarily focuses on the starting pitcher, especially for away games. For example, why is attendence more useful than other pieces of information that could be added, such as the starting catcher? Also, the lists already seem to have enough columns that more could look cluttered. But since this issue has come up on these lists I am curious to hear more about why attendance figures should be included. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A random interesting aside, one of the first projects Bill James ever undertook was trying to study if Nolan Ryan drew bigger crowds than the average pitcher. Anyways, I just think it'd be interesting information since it's available. If you don't want to include it it's certainly not a requirement. Starting catcher actually isn't a horrible idea, but that almost strays into an entirely new List of Chicago Cubs Opening Day starting catchers list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it could be added in doesn't mean it should. I think unnecessary details need to be avoided at all costs. BUC (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check in at the Comeback Player FLC, your comments are the only open ones left! Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments were actually User:BUC's, not mine, but we are working together to try to get this article to FL. The reason I hadn't nominated it earlier was that, due to the reliance on older Retrosheet boxscores, there is no single source I can point to in the lead for some of the general comments (i.e., overall record) without having about 80 inline citations for each statement. List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers did make FL despite similar considerations, so I suppose it isn't an absolite obstacle, but if you have any comments in that regard I would approeciate them. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally Rlendog I'd highly recommend you at least give it a go and just see what happens. I can't do it myself since I'm not a major contributor. But I would be happy to help if you were to nominate it. BUC (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rlendog, your indented response had no name, didn't know it was you. In the lead you are allowed to summarize data in the table without referencing. See that Comeback Player award page I discussed, for example, I mention many players who went to the All-Star Game but don't cite each win, that's within the table itself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must have left off a tilde. Sorry about that. Rlendog (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that now. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another note Should the Retrosheet refs be to "Retrosheet Inc."? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the ref publisher? Maybe. I am not sure what the rules are. But the top of the page you linked to just says "Retrosheet", as does the address listed in their "About Us" page [1] and the bottom of each of their pages. So at a minimum, just calling them "Retrosheet" doesn't seem incorrect. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]