Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Philadelphia Phillies/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philadelphia Phillies

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 the coordinator of WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies. I have been trying to get this article to B-class with the ultimate goal of getting it to GA status. I've done a lot of extensive work on it in the past few days and over the last couple of months. I would like some input from the community as to what would be necessary to get this article to B-class. I would like to wait on thoughts for GA status until I finish getting it to B. I appreciate any and all input.

Thanks so much, KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article. What is here is a good start, and it is clear a lot of work has gone into it, but it needs a lot more work to get to GA status. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • A model article is often useful - I was a bit surprisedto see there are no FAs on baseball teams and only one GA, on the minor league Kinston Indians. There are several FA articles on sports teams at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation that may be good models.
    • Thanks for the suggestion. I am actually not surprised that there are no baseball team FAs because there are so many fans out there who want to add their two cents. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. The current lead does not seem to meet the criteria set forth in WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Also avoid extraneous details in the lead - these can be in the body of the article. So saying it is tied with the SF Giants as the fifth oldest Major League Baseball Team is fine, but I doubt the four times that are older need to be listed in the lead (and this information is not given in the body of the article)
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - so the lead is a summary of the whole article. For example, there is nothing on their Fans or Environmental record in the lead.
  • Avoid jargon and try for an encyclopedic tone - people from all over the world read Wikipedia, not just baseball fans. So I am not sure that "in the majors" in as the fifth-oldest team in the majors is clear. Another example is "four major sports" in the Phillies became the first team in the four major sports to surpass 10,000 losses in franchise history in 2007. - most of the world would put football (soccer) on the list, which I assume is the American four of baseball, football, basketball, and ice hockey. See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
  • Biggest problem I see with this article becoming GA is lack of references. The whole history section has one reference. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
    • The lack of references in the history section is due to a recent rewrite; we've recently moved all the team history to a daughter page, and I haven't gone back through and deciphered what in that section needs references yet. It wasn't up on my list at the moment because I'm just looking toward B-class at this point. GA is a long-term goal. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Make sure references are reliable and meet WP:RS. For example what makes http://www.meetthephillies.com/ a reliable source? This is a major team and there are books and many articles written about it - use those instead of some fan web site.
  • Avoid duplicate refs - current refs 15 and 16 are the same - use <ref name ="blah">Blah blah blah</ref> and then you only need to use <ref name ="blah"/> the next times.
    • Could you take a look at the references again? I've tried to go over, add a lot of reference sites, and fix duplicates. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Article needs a serious copyedit - two examples After lumber baron William B. Cox [bought the team? took over? burped?] in 1943, the Phillies began a rapid rise to prominence in the National League, as the team rose out of the standings cellar for the first time in 5 years. missing a word or phrase (my guesses given) and spell out number ten and less (so five not 5). Or this note Chuck Klein wore many numbers while with the Phillies, including 1, 3, 8, 26, 29, and 36. The Phillies wore the Old English "P," used to honor Klein, during his first six seasons.[35] I believe that the last sentence means the team wore the P during his first six seasons and then used it to honor him later, but the way it is written it seems to mean that during his first six seasons the team wore the P to honor him at that time.
    • I struggled with a way to word this sentence so that it was unambiguous... unfortunately, I didn't come up with anything more effective than that. Suggestions welcome.KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Images should be set to thumb size to allow reader preferences to take over - see WP:MOS#Images
  • Why the last five seasons records and last five years of the wall of fame? See WP:RECENTISM
  • It seems to me that a lot of the lists could be broken out as their own articles (List of Phillies in the Hall of Fame, List of Phillies Seasons, wall of fame, etc. See WP:Summary style
    • To the two comments above: Those are shown as examples of recent history, but both are linked to pages containing the full history. Both of these things used to be included totally in the Phillies page and it was inordinately long. Those lists already do exist, except for Phillies in the Hall of Fame, which no other teams have separate pages for. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Things that are lists could in some cases be turned into prose - for example the players who have hit four homers in one game could just be something like: The first Philadelphia player to do so was Ed Delahanty on July 13, 1896 at West Side Park in Chicago, followed by Chuck Klein on July 10, 1936 at Forbes Field in Pittsburgh, and last by Mike Schmidt on April 17, 1976 at Wrigley Field in Chicago.
  • I would go from most important to least in the topics. Is Environmental record really the third most important thing about the team?
  • Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC) PS I forgot you reviewed the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita already - thanks![reply]

  • I looked at the refs again, they look better but still there are many that need more information. For example Ref 21 a b National Baseball Hall of Fame - Dressed to the Nines - Uniform Database should list the HOF as the publisher, not as part of the title. The last four refs also need a publisher. I also like the Klein sentence tweak. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montco Comments

  • I generally have a problem with statements like this unless they are accompanied by a source where Hooton or LaSorda credits the crowd with rattling him. "Memorable incidents include fans heckling Los Angeles Dodgers' pitcher Burt Hooton during Game 3 of the 1977 National League Championship Series; his poor showing has often been attributed to the crowd's taunting."
    • I'm still chasing down references for some things like this. Web sources are easy to find, but sometimes I have to dig a little deeper (i.e., library research), and that takes time. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • This isn't entirely true. "The Phillies' popularity drove the Athletics to leave the city for Kansas City and, eventually, Oakland." The Phils were on the rise, but the A's were a miserable ballclub with lousy management.
  • Not sure this reads right to me. "Players defected to the American League upon its formation, especially to the Athletics on the other side of Philadelphia; this cost the Phillies dearly." Maybe something along the lines of "Player defections to the newly-formed American League, especially to the cross-town Athletics would cost the team dearly over the next several years." I might give an example of some of the more notable defections.
  • Not trying to open up any old wounds here, but the the entire article does not mention Dick Allen or some of the racial issues with the team and the fans. The Phils were the last NL team to sign a black player and Allen dealt with racial epithets when he played for the team. This piece [1] is probably a bit sensationalized, but still discusses issues that the team had with racism.
  • Other than listing him as a Phils HOFer, there is no mention of Bunning in the article.
    • To the above two comments; details have been broken out into the article History of the Philadelphia Phillies. Granted, they aren't there either, but that is where they would go, not on this page. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • I think the article opens the door to this by including a section on the fans. If the article can make unsubstantiated claims about the fans rattling a pitcher in the playoffs, I definitely think that there is room for documented history of the fans giving hell to what was effectively the team's first black star player. I am not going to drone on too much about this since this is article talk page material. But I think that if the article is to try and get to GA status, I think its something that might come up.Montco (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The section on fan support is common to other baseball articles, and I believe it is necessary for the Phillies because of the uniqueness of their particular fan situation (the boo birds and whatnot). I did reference the claim about Burt Hooton's poor showing in the article, and am looking for more references as time goes on. I don't live on Wikipedia (though sometimes it feels like it), so I can't spend absolutely every minute looking for references. The stuff for Dick Allen could be mentioned in the fan section as well, but again, it's not something that I've gotten around to yet. The details definitely should be put in the history article; I'm actually surprised that it was overlooked; I'm not the one who wrote the majority of that article, though. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • I would note that Allen Barra is a writer for Salon.com or whereever he was at the time.
 Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Seems to be a heavy reliance on the Phillies Official History. For factual material, its probably ok, but keep in mind that its not always going to be neutral.

Overall I think its written well. There are a few things I would change just being a baseball guy that I think are important. I think in the trimming of the history section, perhaps too much was trimmed. I am dealing with the opposite problem on the Cleveland Indians where our history section is probably crying out for a separate article as you have. Good luck. Montco (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Old Question

[edit]

A big thank you to my reviewers. I guess now I can ask for a straight answer on the original question. Just a support/yes or object/no will do below this line. Does this article qualify for B-class, after the suggested changes that have been made? Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Philadelphia_Phillies/archive1&oldid=1078794599"