Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1926 World Series

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:07, 25 June 2008 [1].

1926 World Series edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I enjoyed writing this article, and I hope you enjoy reading it! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support

  • "The 1926 World Series was the championship series of the 1926 Major League Baseball (MLB) season" link to 1926 Major League Baseball season here.
  • "featuring the St. Louis Cardinals against the New York Yankees. The best-of-seven series, which took place at Yankee Stadium and Sportsman's Park, resulted in the Cardinals defeating the Yankees four games to three." I would reword this so the bit about the teams is one sentence, the bit about the venues is another and the bit about the result is a third.
  • "10 World Series" ten
  • "Yankee Stadium was packed with 61,658 fans on 2 October to watch the inaugural game of the 1926 World Series. The thousands of fans who could not get tickets for the game went downtown to City Hall to watch the game's progress being charted on two large scoreboards." needs ref. Also why "packed" it appears again in game 3?
  • What is the purposes of having Image:Lou Gehrig HoF.jpg, in game 6?
  • The announcer call in game 4 is a bit long, do we need all of it? It also doesn't say who the announcer was.
  • "They rebounded from their 1926 loss by winning the title in 1927 and 1928." poor wording. Also replace "their" with "this".
  • I think the Summary section should be at the bottom.
    • It's a convenience to readers who want to quickly access the scores of each game. I've seen this format in other World Series articles as well. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't that what the infobox is for? Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surly the Aftermath section could be exspanded?

Impressive though for an event from over 80 years ago. Buc (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Expand on what is already there for a start. If you don't think you can expand it much though, remove it, it's not worth having a section that short. Buc (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a section is too short, we shouldn't have it? I'll see what I can do, but I don't think removing the section is appropriate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There isn't anything mentioned in it at the moment that really has anything to do with the 1926 World Series. Buc (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's an "Aftermath" section. It's supposed to cover the team and its players after the WS. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is not rule that says you have to have an Aftermath and certainly not one about what it's "supposed" to cover. Buc (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Who said anything about a rule. I believe readers should be aware of what happened to the players and teams of the 1926 WS after the series. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The problem is it has nothing to do with the 1926 World Series. Buc (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "Babe Ruth and Johnny Sylvester" section for and why does it come after game 4?
    • It's famous 1926 World Series lore. It doesn't make sense to have it before the game, since I reveal Ruth's Game 4 heroics. It's appropriate to have this after Game 4, since this was when the story was first publicized. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Make it a sub-section and explain this then.
        • A sub-section of "Matchups"? I clarified why Johnny Sylvester story is important.
  • "Furthermore, he pitched a complete game" why "Furthermore"?
  • Background section seems to be mostly about the two team rout to the series.
  • "Babe Ruth hit three home runs, a World Series record only equaled twice since: again by Ruth in 1928, and by Yankees slugger Reggie Jackson in 1977." Is this noble enough for the lead?
  • What does "GA" mean?
  • "far surpassing his 8–13 record and 4.92 earned run average of the previous season" but you don't mention his record or earned run average for this season.
  • "13:30 in either Eastern or Central Standard Time, depending on the location of the game" I'm not sure what the rules are about how times should be written on here, but personally I would put 1:30 p.m. Also this sentence is kinda confusing, why not just say "local time"?
  • "Doc Woods, the team's trainer, sewed up Ruth's pants on the ballfield, much to the amusement of the audience." needs refs.
  • "espective pitching duels earlier in the series." the reader may not know what a pitching duel is.
  • "after back-to-back singles" reader may not know what back to back means.
  • "Hornsby then grounded out to Koenig to end the inning. Gehrig, Lazzeri and Dugan all grounded out in the bottom of the seventh inning. In the top of the eighth, Bottomley launched a single into right field. Yankees manager Miller Huggins came out of the dugout and took Shocker out of the game, calling in Bob Shawkey from the bullpen to replace him. Shawkey struck out the first two batters he faced, and Bottomley was tagged out by Koenig from a throw from catcher Severeid, after attempting to steal second base. The Yankees could not produce any runs in their half of the inning." needs refs.
  • "Meusel then hit a single in right field, but unsuccessfully tried to stretch it into a double." why was he unsuccessful?
  • "it is, to date" as of 2008
  • What makes Sports-Reference, Inc. and Retrosheet reliable sources?
    • For discussion of reliability for Retrosheet, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard. Sports-Reference falls under the same boat; it has been used as a reference for baseball statistics in a number of scholarly works and sports reports from a number of newspapers.[2][3]
  • "the city could fittingly welcome the Cardinals" why fittingly?
  • The second paragragh of game 3 seems to be rarther poor prose, why does it end "Both teams were held scoreless until the fourth inning."?
  • "The 1926 World Series resulted in one of the most famous anecdotes in baseball history" then why isn't it mentioned in the lead?
  • "The contest for first place in the National League was heated." POV
    • Is "close" an acceptable alternate for "heated"? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC
      • If that's what you meant. Apon thinking about this again, it's not really POV but still poor wording. I also notice "the Reds" are not linked or called by there full name when they are first mentioned.
        • Someone added it while copyediting (the original wording wasn't too great, so we can't go back to that). "Close" is a bit ambiguous, so I'll go back to "heated". Reds is linked, by the way. See first sentence of the the section. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Cardinals team history." as oppose to some other history?


Ok will give it another read when I have more time to see if there are any other problems. Buc (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Do we really need Image:Bob-meusel cleaned.jpg?
    • Why not? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any real reason for it to be there?
        • Well, I wanted an image for each game section. The image is in good quality, and I think it's a nice visual for the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In other words, it's there just for the sake of it. Buc (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why, do you think it should be removed? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is really no reason to have any of them save to one in the infobox since that's actually from 1926 World Series. I can understand having one or two images for the sake of it, an article with no images looks very dull, but not a whole bunch of them. This isn't really something that would stop it from becoming a FA since they are all free use (as far as I can tell) just something that would make it better. Buc (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok it all looks good now save so I'll give weak support. However one problem I still have is that reading it as a baseball fan I can follow it fine but I wonder how someone who knows nothing about game would cope. Basicly the same thing Karanacs said. Buc (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Buc (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm still working on de-jargonization and I've asked Andonic—who's baseball illiterate—to take a look at the article. Hopefully, the text will be easier to understand in the near future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - This is the first article involving my beloved Yankees to reach FAC during my time as a reviewer, and it's a World Series they lost? Come on! :-( Seriously, here are question marks from my first look.

  • "under starting pitcher Herb Pennock" Under seems odd to me. Can another term be used instead?
  • Why is Babe Ruth not linked at first use?
  • "by Ruth again in 1928". Again doesn't work well here.
  • "and the series championship" Pick between series and championship.
  • "decided to try to steal second base". Try "decided to try stealing second base".
  • Background, fourth paragraph: There is an inconsistent use of hyphens when it comes to pennant winner.
  • Cincinnati Reds linked twice in section.
  • It says both teams were confident heading into the series, but there is nothing on the Cardinals in this paragraph. Also, weren't the Yankees heavy favorites going into the Series? The underdog angle could be interesting.
    • I have some NYT articles regarding the WS odds. I'll look into it. I couldn't find a quote from any of the Cardinals regarding each team's confidence. In a previous version of the article, I mentioned that Hornsby expressed confidence that his team would win. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for jargon like bloop, loaded up the bases, bunt, and shot. As a sports fan this is difficult for me to catch, but FAs must be accessible to all.
  • "and grounded the ball to the shortstop".
  • "Cardinals' losing pitcher Sherdel pitched" Redundant. Maybe "threw"? Something also seems off at the start of this sentence.

I left you a note in Bole's photo comment, so take a look at that as well. Giants2008 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Game 2: "Alexander had pitched a 12–10 record in 200 innings" Pitched? Try compiled.
  • The caught stealing thing could be confusing for non-baseball fans, since he was actually safe. I'm sure people will wonder why it says caught, and won't know the rule on scoring such plays.
  • Sloppy wording: "Hornsby grounded out to the Koening".
  • "Yankees' manager Miller Huggins came out of the dugout and took Shocker out of the game and called in Bob Shawkey from the bullpen to replace him." Try "out of the game, calling in".
  • Game 4: "Hoyt had thrice been part of the New York Yankees team that went to the World Series". Try "Hoyt had thrice been part of New York Yankees teams that went to the World Series".
  • "allowing Gehrig to score and keep the bases loaded" Keeping.
  • I just noticed that Art Reinhart is an external jump in the Game 4 box score. Red links are not evil. If someone comes to this page and sees it, they can create an article themselves. That's how Wikipedia grows.
  • Game 7: The writing implies that Lazzeri's long fly ball didn't reach the stands. It did, but of course it went foul.
  • Another reviewer mentioned this earlier, but Aftermath could easily be expanded. The Yankees fielded the famous Murderers' Row team the following year, and the Cardinals became the dominant team in the National League for the next 20 years. There is much that can be written about this.
  • I see that Aftermath has been removed. I consider this a disappointment, as there was a lot that could have been written about the future success of the two teams. It was a short section, though.
  • Barry Levinson's book is listed in Further reading. This should be removed since it is used as a reference, per WP:CITE.

There were a couple other things I saw, but I can't remember them now. I also fixed a few things myself. If I had to vote on this one, I would be Neutral. It is well-referenced and fairly comprehensive, but the game recaps aren't compelling to me. There are some awkward passages at times. like these two from game 7: "Les Bell just barely made it to first base after shortstop Mark Koenig accidentally kicked the ball while trying to field it." Just barely? "and it appeared Haines had run into some problems." The bases were loaded and his finger was bleeding from a popped blister, so it goes without saying that he had "some problems". Perhaps this is from reading a lot of newspaper recaps, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I do wish you luck, as I always like to see sport-related articles succeed here. Giants2008 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to keep an article encyclopedic, but I still think this can be improved. I previously left more comments above, and here are a few more.
  • Game 1: "behind Johnny Mostil winner George Burns." Should be "behind winner George Burns and Johnny Mostil."
  • Game 2: Unneeded Babe Ruth link.
  • Game 3: Cardinals doesn't need a link.
  • "future Baseball Hall of Famer right-handed knuckleball pitcher Jesse Haines" First part of this is very awkward.
  • "but the Cardinals added to their lead by picking a run" Do you mean picking up?
For a good example of what I consider a quality game recap, see 2005 ACC Championship Game, a recently promoted FA. One more piece of advice I will give you is to try obtaining newspaper stories on the games, as well as those in The Sporting News or similar publications. Fresh information from these could be helpful. Giants2008 (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did obtain all the NYT recaps of the games. I only used a few of them, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

This is what I get for traveling. Oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Brain cells are officially mush, sorry about that! It's now on my cheat sheet, so hopefully I'll not forget again! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

Overall awesome article - filled with jargon and POV though. Some comments:
Game 3
Game 4
  • ” Starting Game 4 for the Yankees was future Baseball Hall of Famer Waite Hoyt. In the 1926 season,..” – Do you really need “1926” – you never mentioned the season with other pitchers.
  • ” who had led the team with a .741 winning percentage and 258 innings pitched.” – Shouldn’t “and 258…” be “in 258…”
  • ” Koenig, Rhem surrendered a solo home…” – “surrendered?”
  • ”Bob Meusel followed by drawing a walk…” – Drawing?
  • ”… followed by drawing a walk, and was tagged out at home after attempting to…” Hmm… shouldn’t “and” be “but?”
  • ” Rhem's pitch out of the park for his…” – Blah! Jargon!
  • ” Joe Dugan knocked him in with…” – “Knocked?”
  • ” went full-steam towards…” – Reword “full-stream”
  • ” game tied at three apiece and…” – Is “apiece” really necessary?
  • ” before unleashing a long…” – “Unleashing?”
  • ” unsuccessfully tried to stretch it into a double, and he was tagged out at second base…” – You already said “unsuccessfully”
  • ” allowing two earned runs on 14 hits,” – “two” or “2” – “14” or “fourteen?”
  • ” The Cardinals' five pitchers combined to give up 10 Yankee runs and 14 hits….” -- (See above comment)
  • ” With the series tied at two games apiece…” – “apiece” necessary?
  • ” teams eagerly anticipated…” – Eagerly?
  • Stopped at “Babe Ruth and Johnny Sylvester” - That’s it for now, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Fixed the link. Only years have to be unlinked, if they are not used with a month and day. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I felt the links were relevant (they were only linked when associated with a particular World Series). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All other images look good from a copyright standpoint, nice work. Kelly hi! 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support just did a read through and I'm not seeing anything to cause concern. giggy (:O) 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the prose is much improved and more accessible. --Laser brain (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a for now. I didn't read past the lead because I got bogged down in prose issues. If the lead is representative of the rest of the text, it's rough. Why no peer review?[reply]
    • Image:Ruth1926-3.jpg does not have a sufficient fair use rationale; please use {{Non-free use rationale}}.
    • "The Cardinals and Yankees finished atop the National and American League, respectively." Imagine you know nothing about baseball... finished what?
    • "This was the first World Series appearance for the Cardinals, and it resulted in the first of 10 World Series championships in team history and the first of five clashes these two teams would experience during the next 38 years." Not well-written. Clashes with what? Two things clash - much simpler than experience a clash.
    • "They rebounded from this 1926 loss ..." Why re-state "1926"? Much clearer: "They rebounded from losing this series ..."
    • "Game 1 featured a pitching duel that ended with a Yankees win under starting pitcher Herb Pennock." Duel with whom? Why not just: "After dueling with so-and-so, Yankees starting pitcher Herb Pennock led the team to a Game 1 victory." There is a lot of "game ended with", "series resulted in", and so on.
    • "In Game 4, Babe Ruth hit three home runs, a World Series record only equaled twice since: by Ruth in 1928 and Reggie Jackson in 1977." In the recaps for the first three games, you stated who won. Why not this one?
    • "The Yankees led the series 3–2, but Cardinals player-manager Rogers Hornsby chose Alexander as the starting pitcher in Game 6 and used him as a relief pitcher in Game 7." Why "but"? By using that word, you are suggesting that Hornsby chose Alexander despite the Yankees being ahead.. which doesn't make sense since Alexander won his other game.
    • "Game 7 went down to the wire as the Yankees entered the bottom of the ninth inning trailing 3–2." I don't know anything about baseball.. "bottom of the ninth inning"?
    • "Meusel swung and missed Alexander's pitch, and catcher Bob O'Farrell threw the ball to second baseman Rogers Hornsby ..." You just introduced Hornsby a few sentences ago - why restate his full name? --Laser brain (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments and questions I think I should have stuck to the lead! That was a lot of detail for a non-sports person like myself! :) Here are my comments and questions.

  • I do not know anything about baseball, so when I read this article I was genuinely confused most of the time. It is very hard to follow games in this much detail if one does not know much about a sport. I have no idea if this problem can be remedied or if it should be, but let me give some examples from "Game 1". Let me know if these problems arose from ignorance or colloquial writing:
  • Billy Southworth advanced Douthit to third base with a slow grounder to Yankees' second baseman Tony Lazzeri. - What is a slow grounder vs. a grounder?
  • The difference is speed. A grounder is a ball hit straight to the ground. It just rolls on the grass. Some balls move really slow (low momentum), so they are termed "slow grounders". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardinals' first baseman "Sunny Jim" Bottomley hit a bloop single - Is "bloop" a technical term?
  • With one out, Lou Gehrig came to the plate and grounded the ball to shortstop Tommy Thevenow, who flipped the ball to Hornsby - What does "flipped" mean?
  • Ruth lined a single past third baseman Les Bell. - Does this mean "hit along the line of the field"?
  • In the ninth inning, Jim Bottomley singled off Pennock. - What does "singled off" mean?
  • There seems to be excessive detail regarding the last game of the series in the last paragraph of the lead and it is written in a colloquial, sportscaster style.
  • Is no one else bothered by this? If not, I will strike the concern. Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the 1926 World Series is most widely remembered for its dramatic conclusion. Given that this game is such a significant part of the subject, shouldn't it be covered in more detail in the lead? As far the sportscaster terms in that paragraph, I'll try to tone them down a bit. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation - that makes sense. Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Laser brain above, that some of the writing can be smoothed out, but I should not attempt this as I am unfamiliar with the topic. Exs:
  • Meanwhile, in the National League, the Cardinals and the Reds continued to battle for first place in the league. - Why "meanwhile" (it sort sounds like "meanwhile, back at the ranch")?
  • the Reds embarked on a multi-game losing streak - Does a team really "embark" on a losing streak?
  • I read through parts of the article again and they read more smoothly after the recent copyediting. Awadewit (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also thought there would be ancillary information regarding the players and the series - is this remembered as an important series? If so, why? When is it referred to? What other series is it compared to? Perhaps because I am not a baseball fan, I was looking for other sorts of information about sports culture at the time and thought perhaps there could be more said about this. Perhaps this information is just not available? Sorry to be so vague! Awadewit (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each series is unique, so I doubt there were any strong similarities with other World Series games. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the availability of materials regarding sports culture during this era. It seems pretty tangential to the subject to be written about in this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments pursuant to Awadewit's comments: My examples above were fixed but after reading the entire article, I'm really concerned about its accessibility. I'm thinking of how lost I've been reading rugby FACs from time to time. We can expect some foreknowledge; if people are truly lost, they should go read baseball first. But, we can make an effort to explain/link basic concepts and stifle the sportscaster lingo. Some examples:
    • The concept of stealing is never linked or explained.. "... and Lazzeri then attempted to steal home plate." Zoinks! Why would he do that?
    • I don't know if "top" and "bottom" of an inning is jargon.. I'd like to get some other opinions. Plenty of people don't know specialized terms like "port" and "starboard". "Beginning" and "end" for the masses?
    • Other puzzlers: "grounder", "popped up", "bloop single" (no idea), "grounded the ball", "flipped the ball", "groundout", "flied out", and so on. To be safe, I'd get a fresh pair of eyes on this just to go on a jargon hunt. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've just given it a copyedit, and will do another pass for jargon. It's easy to add wikilinks, but adding in-text explanations without ruining the patter of play-by-plays will be a challenge (I'm already bothered by 'the eighth inning' rather than just 'the eighth'). Nish, can you turn blooper (baseball) blue, and link to it from the pitiful blooper (disambiguation)? I'll work on jargon. Maralia (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start, wikilinked stolen base, inning, grounder, pop, and bloop. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit and dejargonization, Maralia. Since I've been around baseball practically my whole life, it's difficult for me to take the perspective of a person unfamiliar with sports. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, honestly - it would have been tough, but Awadewit and Laser brain's lists helped clue me in to what people needed. I'll give it another readthrough today to see if I can smooth any more edges. Maralia (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working through this now, but having a rough time. Would like to find a better section heading than "Background", and "led" or "led by" is used repetitively, need some variation there, and finding undefined jargon and terms still. Also, a lot of commas, I changed a couple to emdashes. Working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at my edit summaries; they are suggestions only (feel free to revert anything), but I'd like to see a bit more of this kind of tightening of the prose and defining of lingo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, primarily on jargon. I copyedited the season summary and half of the Game 1 recap to try to use regular words rather than sports terminology and then got tired.[5] I really think you need a non-baseball person to go through this more closely to reword some of the rest of it. I'm also not entirely happy with the organization.
    • I question the organization a bit. Why is the recap before the season summary (since the season happened before the world series)? I think I would combine the recap section with the Composite Box section as a Statistics section (or something like that) at the bottom of the article.
    • I really don't like that the section for each Game in the series starts with a fragment listing the date and place and then a stat box (that is not explained at all for people unfamiliar with baseball). The date/place should be covered in the prose, and I'd move the stat box lower in the section (or to a combined statistics section later). I checked other FAs on sports, and none seemed to begin a section this way.
    • I think the Aftermath section is probably unnecessary and could be removed.
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of under four lines should not be offset; they should be part of the paragraph.

Comments

- I've made a few minor copy edits as I've read through the article. A few areas I think require some clarification/improvement:

  • "....far surpassing his previous season record of 8–13 record with a 4.92 earned run average (ERA)."
  • Is that Rhem's record from the 1925 season (i.e., the previous season), or is that his previous best season?
  • .."who hit over .400 the season before.."
  • Consider wikilinking "batting average" to the number itself, as the link in the word "hit" might be misinterpreted as an unnecessary link to a common word rather than a special usage. Alternately, consider changing the wording to "...who had a batting average of .400..."
  • (from the quote at the bottom of the season summary: "There's no doubt in their doubt or in mine that the Yankees will win.[20]"
  • No doubt in their doubt? Possible copy-typing error.
  • "...gaining 16 wins and 12 losses."
  • Consider switching "gaining" with either attaining or earning
  • ..."hitting another grounder right, who threw it to first baseman Lou Gehrig..."
  • What is the name of the player who threw the ball to Gehrig? (I am trying very hard not to think of Abbott and Costello while reading this sentence.)
  • "...but was tagged out by Bell."
  • I think you need to wikilink "tagged out" to something, I'll let you figure out to what. (Note - this phrase appears multiple times, wikilink the first one)
  • "Thevenow had only two home runs in his career, both of which were inside-the-park and during the 1926 regular season."
  • Would this have been his third? Would it be more correct to say "Thevenow had only two other home runs..."?
  • "Both teams were held scoreless by the respective opposing pitchers until the fourth inning."
  • Consider simplifying to "Both teams were held scoreless until the fourth inning."
  • "...was called safe by the umpire."
  • Is there something you can wikilink "safe" to?
  • "Hoyt had thrice been part of New York Yankees teams that went to the World Series, and by the 1926 World Series, he had over 35 innings of pitching experience in the championship series."
  • This sentence feels awkward to me, perhaps because of the word "thrice". Does this work better:
"This was Hoyt's fourth [or is it third?] World Series with the New York Yankees, and he entered the 1926 Series with over...."
  • "...O'Farrell promptly tagged up ..."
  • Another wikilinking opportunity for "tagged up", especially as "tagged" to this point has referred to "tagging out".
  • "Ruth worked the count..."
  • Either wikilink or find a way to say this without jargon.
  • "...Pennock hit a line drive a double into left field ..."
  • Was it a line drive, a double, or a line drive double? (I wasn't sure so I didn't fix it.)
  • "...winning by a score of three to two."
  • Why is this the only score that is spelled out?

I can remember when the Series games were played during the day, and there was always someone at school who smuggled in a transistor radio to catch the scores; this article has a similar feel to it. I can see how a neophyte would have a challenge with some of the specialist vocabulary, but with a few more wikilinks I think most of the key terms will be covered. Risker (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose for now, just some quibbles and concerns about jargon.

Fine article, just some quibbles, mainly jargon. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start working on dejargonization soon. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Baseball is so familiar to many U.S. readers that the jargon can be hard to spot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

  • Comment – Is there a way to remove the picture-frame from the infobox and enter the image with a caption straight away, as in other infoboxes? The current effect of a frame within a frame looks strange and amateurish. Waltham, The Duke of 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1926_World_Series&oldid=1180735815"