Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Babe Ruth/archive2

< 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 Ian Rose 08:49, 25 May 2014 [1].


Babe Ruth edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Babe Ruth. That's about it, really.Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby should the nicknames be given so much prominence? They are both bolded and in the first sentence (I think they should be neither). It's weird that the (unacquainted) reader comes to know of them before he learns that Ruth was a baseballer.—indopug (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the subsections under "New York Yankees (1920–1934)", 1) can they descriptively titled? (else, they're just arbitrary) 2) can they be made more evenly sized?—indopug (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was usual to put nicknames after the name, or born as names, etc. I'm open to alternatives. Regarding the years, they generally track the Yankees' (and, mostly, Ruth's) success, the initial pennant winning teams, 1924 and 1925, when they did not win, the peak years of "Murderer's Row", the pennant-winning 1926 to 1928 squads, and the final fairly lean years. I can make up names to put in there, but the years will still need to be in there. I don't see how to even them out in length, given that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just retitle them then, don't worry about resectioning.—indopug (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And is there any way to cut down on the absurd number (I count 15!) of nav templates at the bottom of the article?—indopug (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed the navboxes and named the subsections.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: I wonder about the first paragraph of the lead. "Ruth achieved his greatest fame as a slugging outfielder for the New York Yankees" loses me by using "slugging" (is this the baseball technical term, or a more general descriptive term" and then we go into "He established many MLB batting (and some pitching) records, including career home runs (714), slugging percentage (.690), runs batted in (RBIs) (2,213), bases on balls (2,062), and on-base plus slugging (OPS) (1.164)" which reads like a sea of blue and makes the general reader like myself a little dizzy. But then the rest of the lead is a frankly brilliant read which is accessible to everyone. I'm not suggesting removing all baseball technicalities (and given the rubbish that I write about, I'd be on shaky ground!), but it seems a shame to bog down the first paragraph when this will be the first thing that the reader comes across. Could we cut a couple of the records and just leave the easy-to-follow ones like home runs and RBIs? Just my view as a non-baseballer, and feel free to disagree. I hope to get to the rest of the article this week. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I cut those records, the baseball people will oppose for not including modern statistics, such as OPS and OPS+. I believe that's happened in other articles. On slugging, I do see your point. This article uses baseball lingo extensively. I am anxious to accommodate all comers to this article. But if I don't use baseball lingo, it will be very noticeable. "Slugging" refers to his ability to hit home runs. I would urge reviewers to compare to other baseball FAs, and also to the other baseball articles presently at FAC for comparison.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been active at FAC for some time, but I can't help but get involved with this one, given my Yankee fandom. If I reading this FAC correctly (I think this is the one you're talking about), the reviewer is complaining about how modern stats weren't being used at all. If you put/have the records in the body, perhaps in the Legacy section, and leave only the higher-profile ones in the lead, I don't think that anyone will feel cheated. I've done a few copy-edits so far and plan on doing more; it's a good read so far, and the coverage appears to be solid. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the commenter in that other FAC regarding advanced statistics, here are my thoughts on this article. I think it is good to take a middle ground approach. There is no need to over burden the lead with advanced statistics that may turn off the general reader. I do think, however, that the article currently does not do a very good job of discussing his statistical legacy. Whether you go with traditional statistics or sabermetrics, there is really no one in baseball history that has ever approached Ruth at his peak. I think this article would benefit from a section going into more detail on this. Its not about just throwing a bunch of numbers out, but more about explaining how certain authors have analyzed these statistics to determine Ruth's value as a baseball player. The reliable sources certainly exist to analyze Ruth in this fashion. On an unrelated note, I see that the article touches on the changes to the baseball that helped inaugurate the live-ball era, but I believe a far more significant impact resulted from the death of Ray Chapman in 1920 and the subsequent banning of the spit ball and more frequent replacement of beat up baseballs during a game. Indrian (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would you recommend for such a section? I did not attempt to get into the advanced statistics, which frankly I'm not terribly familiar with (I have a couple of elderly copies of James books, and I think my SABR membership hasn't expired yet). As for the live ball era, I grant you those were factors (though given that the spitball was restricted after 1919 and existing spitballers were grandfathered, that was a more long term effect that probably didn't affect Ruth too much in 1920 and 1921). Keep in mind there are already concerns expressed that the article is a bit opaque to the non-baseball fan.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding statistics: I think it's best for Babe Ruth's main article to be accessible to the general public, considering his prominence even to this day. A stand-alone list for his career statistics (Career statistics of Babe Ruth or something) would probably be warranted, considering how much discussion of him there is and how long such a set of statistics would be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Indrian's comment, I've added a Bill James book and borrowed from his discussion of those factors, which are quite interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review edit
Fixed with a slightly different image. I used the same file name as I did not realize it was different until I uploaded it.
Cut--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:1914 Baltimore Orioles Team Photograph with Babe Ruth.jpg - Based on the description at the source (here), this image's publication is dated to 1932 (when Babe was doing baseball shorts). Do we have any proof of a pre-1923 publication?
      • A formally posed baseball team photo would have been used in team publications and released to the newspaper at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was hoping for something a little more concrete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I'm looking for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped for a different one I just pulled in. Could you check that as well?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Babe Ruth Culver Service Photograph, 1916.jpg - The stickers on the back of the image (see source) are clearly much more recent than 1916 (among the most obvious signs are the 10 digit phone numbers, computer printed sticker, and Babe's year of death). Do we have any proof this was published before 1923?
Swapped for another baseball card.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Babe Ruth circa 1920.jpg - Two issues here: First, this is only circa 1920... anything more concrete? Thompson clearly asserted his copyright (see source), so a post-1923 publication will throw serious wrenches into the works. Second, the auction clearly states that this is a "personal photographer's copy", suggesting it may not have been published; proof of publication is needed.
Cut. We have a portrait a couple of years earlier, we don't need this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably PD but I don't want to deal with finding a 1927 Yankees publication. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems trivial. Cut.
    • File:Babe Ruth 800.jpg - I think the carving passes the threshold of originality for the United States, and thus (if this is still copyrighted) it would need freedom of panorama to truly be free (since it is a relief, it would not be covered by US FOP). When was this grave erected? Any evidence that a copyright notice was included or not included (if the grave was erected in the 1940s)?
Cut. I don't see what it adds.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It had to be made in 1948 or 1949, as it was erected in 1949. There is a Babe Ruth Memorial registered as an artwork for copyright in 1948, but I checked copyright renewals for 1975, 1976, and 1977 and saw nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There don't seem to be any relevant copyrights for 1954 or 1955 or 1956. I didn't look before that because the Orioles were in St. Louis before 1954.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:2Ruth1948April.jpg - I don't think this meets the (admittedly very strict) criteria for press agency photographs. NFC calls for "sourced critical commentary" (emphasis mine, in the line "Note that in the case the image is from a press agency and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail the second test of 'respect for commercial opportunity'." Critical, meaning analysis of the photograph itself, like in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Here, the photograph is simply given the line "The photo of Ruth taken from behind, standing near home plate and facing "Ruthville" (right field) became one of baseball's most famous and widely circulated photographs, and won the Pulitzer Prize", essentially stating "it exists, it shows this, and it won a prize". It is not the critical commentary called for by the NFC. That being said, I don't doubt such commentary could be found and included, assuming you did not consider it WP:UNDUE — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got everything if not I am sure you will tell me. Thank you for the image review. I am traveling until after next weekend and will have limited internet for part of it. All comments will be addressed, I am just juggling too many things right now. Bear with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco comments edit
  • stellar left-handed pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, - isn't stellar POV?
Only if there is disagreement on the point. I do not know of a school of thought that Ruth was other than a top figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • learned life lessons - this feels very empty
Do you have a suggested alternative? Clearly Matthias taught Ruth more than how to hold his shoulders while swinging the bat (or whatever).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, but these unspecified life lessons were not as pertinent to his later notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Brother Matthias is part of the Ruth legend, and that it should be said that Ruth carried away more than baseball skills from St. Mary's.
  • After that season, Ruth was controversially sold by Red Sox owner Harry Frazee to the Yankees. - Perhaps rework as "After that season, Red Sox owner Harry Frazee controversially sold Ruth to the Yankees." so that it's easier to parse?
Done.
  • legendary power - legendary is also POV
The article touches on the legend of Babe Ruth and his home runs in several places. I do not know of a contrary school of thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd probably go with direct quotes then. Sources may agree on a POV, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are we superior to the sources? I think the legacy section goes there. I just don't think it's worth a direct quote when I don't think there's much debate. Certainly not in the lede.
  • I don't think I said we're superior to the sources. The thing that differentiates us is that we have to follow WP:NPOV, whereas the sources do not. WP:YESPOV, especially point one, is the main issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • including as a lightning rod salesman and on Baltimore's streetcars, - as a what on the streetcars?
We don't know. Just that he worked there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't we link all positions upon first mention?
  • Regardless of when he began to win his first wife, - "he won his wife"? Em, no. Even if they just met, you don't talk about love at first sight or anything like that. That being said, that a woman is said to be "won" like a trophy is sure to draw fire.
  • The Babe Ruth Story - I think usually the year of production is put in parentheses after the first mention
  • no decision - link?
Done.
  • who played under four managers who are enshrined in the Hall of Fame, always maintained that Carrigan, who is not, - I had to think about it a bit to realize that you meant Carrigan is not in the HoF
Done.
  • To keep Ruth and his bat in the game, he was sent to play left field, but Bush retired the side to give Ruth his second win of the Series and the third and last World Series pitching victory of his career, against no defeats, in three pitching appearances. - this should probably be split

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • pitching chores, - POV
[2]! anyway, I've changed it to "duties".
  • "Babe Ruth Day" at Fenway Park, Ruth won the game in the bottom of the ninth, tying Williamson. - two things: was it BRD at Fenway Park when Babe was batting (as the text seems to say), and this sentence isn't explicit about him hitting a homer
Done, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • heroics - POV
I think that's common baseball parlance.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Up to date except for the first link of positions, which I will have to go through in detail. Thank you for the review comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the New York team's principal owner, brewer and former congressman Jacob Ruppert - Sounds as if he was congressing and brewing for the team as well.
I'm not clear what you mean by that. There is only one venue to be a congressman in. The Ruppert Brewing Company was well known.
  • Frazee sold the rights to Babe Ruth for $100,000, the largest sum ever paid for a baseball player. - recommend adding "at the time" or "adjusted for inflation" before "the largest" (whichever is correct). I'm pretty sure million dollar contracts are relatively common now.
"to that point" added.
  • next Summer - caps in original?
Yes.
  • and lead baseball with 40 pennants and 27 World Series titles in their history. - I'm assuming this is meant to be present tense, but that is not clear from the sentence
Well, it's not "led", and I assure you it is not a typo. I don't think it necessary to add a date. If the Cardinals get close in a decade or two, we can reconsider.
  • After the month of April 1920, - what is "the month" adding?
  • Cleveland, winners of the 1920 World Series. - didn't you already mention above that they had won?
Only the league, I did not mention the World Series
  • The largest sum ever paid a ballplayer, - this too; at the time, or adjusted for inflation, but certainly not meaning no ball player since has received 52k a year.
  • bingeing - I belive binging is the correct spelling; Google says so too
  • his normal production - Production? Is this the best word?
As good a synonym as any, I think.
  • Games Two and Three - correct caps?
Yes.
  • According to Appel, "The 1927 New York Yankees. Even today, the words inspire awe ... all baseball success is measured against the '27 team." - might be worth including the year for "today"
I don't think the '27 Yanks are going to be ill-regarded anytime soon. I think baseball fans would think it odd, as if it's going to change. There have certainly been other great baseball teams, but I do not think even some great team of the future would entirely displace Murderer's Row.
  • by as much as 17 games. - what does "as much as" add here?
  • words to be exchanged - feels like a euphemism
More than likely. Baseball reporters were fairly discreet at the time, and the tale has since grown in the telling. I think it is best left so. The reader knows they were not pleasantries.
It would be hard to trace directly. Except in the late 40s and late 70s, the Red Sox and Yankees have rarely contented for the pennant at the same time until the last 15 years or so.
  • I only mention as that article has several sections with Ruth in a prominent position. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one spoke about the Curse of the Bambino until the Sox blew it to the Mets in '86.Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruppert offered to make Ruth manager of the Yankees' top minor-league team, the Newark Bears, but he was talked out of it by his wife, Claire (Helen had died in 1929), - he was talked out of it sounds as if Claire told Ruppert to not do it, rather than Ruth (the subject is "Ruppert")
  • stood as a baseball batter and launched some massive shots around the field, destroying the bat in the process. Although Fairfax regretted that he could not have the time to make Ruth a cricket player, Ruth had lost any interest in such a career upon learning that the best batsmen made only about $40 per week. - shame we don't have any documentation of this on Commons. It sure would be a sight to behold!
Regrettably, unless they were published in US papers, they would most likely be non-PD as, after all, this was only 80 years ago.
  • first base coach - Shame we don't have anything that can help explain this for non-baseball fans
The nuances of why Ruth was sent to coach first base rather than third base regrettably will escape the non-baseball fan. But if they've slogged through this far, perhaps they've picked up a thing or two.
  • Ruth's lifestyle was seen as a reason for denying him a managerial job; Barrow said of him, "How can he manage other men when he can't even manage himself?" - I'd put this with "Creamer believed Ruth was unfairly treated in never being given an opportunity to manage a major league club. The author felt there was not a relationship between personal conduct and managerial success, noting that McGraw, Billy Martin and Bobby Valentine were winners despite character flaws" to be honest.
  • and which is often called by his name - is this necessary for an article on Ruth?
I'd let it stand. The two men are closely associated.
  • the gift was accepted by the captain of the Yale baseball team, George Bush, who would later become President of the United States. - feels somewhat trivial.
I personally agree, but that was added by someone else and I know it ticks people off when I remove their stuff, so in close calls I just try to make it fit. If you object strongly I will remove it, but that's my policy.
  • I've removed it as trivia, so you don't have to deal with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a biopic about his own life. - what does "own" add here? Since we've mentioned the manuscript already, I doubt we even need "a biopic ..."
Cut.
  • Lou Gehrig Day - this should be linked on first mention, not in the personal life section
  • Although he was married ... - this sentence would tie in well with the "repeated infidelities", particularly as it is essentially a one sentence paragraph
  • the bunt, and the hit and run. - consider linking
  • Henry Aaron - whey Henry and not Hank? I mean, he's best known as Hank.
I know, but again on balance, due to the race issue I'd rather not address him by nickname on first mention.
  • Do you have a link to something that can give me more context? I'm curious now. I looked through Aaron's article, but couldn't find an explicit relation between Hank and race; the closest our article comes to this is "Braves' public relations director Don Davidson, observing Aaron's quiet, reserved nature, began referring to him publicly as "Hank" in order to suggest more accessibility", but even then it's reaching. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that specifically, I just mean that given what Aaron went through, well, I prefer to use the proper name. Probably it's just me.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is probably even more popular today - another phrase which would work best with a concrete time frame, especially as the book is almost ten years old
Montville's book is dated in the previous paragraph.
  • Ruth has been named the greatest baseball player of all time in various surveys and rankings. - rather than 5 or 6 "In XXXX," sentences, could we have some variety?
Well, I've made the sentences a bit less monotonous.
  • Claire Ruth (widow) - Is "Widow" necessary?
  • Possible duplicate links: International League, Philadelphia Phillies, Chicago White Stockings (Cubs), organized baseball, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Pittsburgh Pirates, Philadelphia Athletics, Chicago Cubs, Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds, Detroit Tigers, Forbes Field, Walter Johnson, The Babe Ruth Story — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed most of those, those that remain are double linked for a reason, mostly because we cannot depend on keeping readers thought the article. I think I've caught everything but as I am careless it behooves you to check. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. A massive article on a massive subject. Good work, as usual, from Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I am grateful for your reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy section edit

Shouldn't the article mention that Babe Ruth appears on a U.S. commemorative postage stamp, issued in 1983 , and also on baseball cards which are highly collectable and rather expensive btw. Seems these items would work well in the legacy section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp maybe, baseball card seems like everyone's on a baseball card. I'm familiar with the stamp. Let me look for a RS on that. I'm behind on this review but hope to catch up next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of baseball cards, haven't gotten to the stamp yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of stamp added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the stats in the infobox do not appear to be sourced in the article text
I answer this one separately. I sourced them, rather than inserting them in article text, as I am sensitive to concerns about lists of statistics being boring to read. My sourcing was reversed as clutter. After considering the matter, I agree. Babe Ruth's career statistics need not be sourced, and the interested reader has other statistical resources available to him. We do not pretend to be the back of a baseball card!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN79: page?
  • FN151: page(s)?
  • FN172: why does this publication include location when other periodicals do not?
  • FN180 and 181 appear to be the same source
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are formatted
  • FN183: why is this cited by publisher rather than publication?
  • FN206: accessdate?
  • FN208: where did you access this source?
  • FN212: why does this include ISSN when other periodicals do not?
  • No citations to Weintraub. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, due to lack of internet access, I will do this (and other remaining comments) on the weekend. Sorry about the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and had my quibbles and queries (all minor) thoroughly dealt with then. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 15:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions there and here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date. Waiting for additional feedback on the statistics issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I know nothing about baseball but, like about 99.5% of the western world, I'd heard of Babe Ruth and had some idea of his impact on the game. The detail in this article was a revelation when I read it at peer review, a fascinating life story very thoroughly researched and put together with great care. I had plenty to say at the peer review, and I've nothing to add, although I think a subject like this will always provoke comment and perhaps controversy. I look forward very much to the article regaining its featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've read down to the end of the Boston section so far, and this is marvellous stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He rarely was visited by his family; his mother died when he was 12 and by some accounts, he was permitted to leave St. Mary's only to attend the funeral.[12] How Ruth came to play baseball there is uncertain; by one account one of the misdeeds that led to his placement at St. Mary's was repeated breaking of Baltimore's windows with long hits while playing street ball": Could we avoid the repetition of "by some/one account(s)" here? This wording is also used at the start of the Baltimore section. (And is it worth saying anything else about these accounts? Contemporary, press, historical, speculative...?)
I think contemporary to Ruth's career, though not necessarily to the moment. Ruth's fame caused a number of early classmates, teachers, and others to go into print, and others told tales to sportswriters. I'm not sure that anything could be added that would be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early years section contains several sentences of the type "and his running and hitting styles would closely resemble his teacher's". There is nothing really wrong with this wording as used here, but as "would" crops up six times in this section, I wonder do we need a little variety?
  • I can't help but notice the contrast to what is known about some of cricket's legends such as Bradman, Jack Hobbs, or WG Grace, where their childhoods and early lives are documented in mind-numbing detail! (No action required here!)
  • "Ruth hit a long home run to right": Should this be to the right, or is it baseball-speak?
Baseball talk. I think no link is needed.
  • "...which was locally said to be longer than a legendary shot hit in Fayetteville by Jim Thorpe": Do we need shot and hit in this sentence?
Shot is synonym for home run, hit is a verb.
  • "The competition from the Terrapins caused Dunn to sustain large losses": Perhaps specify financial, rather than competitive, losses?
Given that the source of the problem is lack of attendance, I think it is understood.
  • "As a batter, in his major-league debut, Ruth went 0-for-2 against left-hander Willie Mitchell": Is there a link for 0-for-2?
  • "Ruth finished the season with a 2–1 record": And is there a link for the win-loss format?
  • "and after some good relief appearances": Link for relief?
The above three are dealt with by insertion of pipes.
  • "and Ruth's majestic shot awed the crowd": Majestic hardly seems a neutral description!
I understand the POV rule as not letting us take sides on disputed points. I do not think it bars all but bland adjectives. A home run hit into the upper deck of the Polo Grounds especially when such a feat was very rare would come across as majestic. I am unaware of a contrary school of thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A very interesting and well-written article which I am more than happy meets the criteria. The following points do not affect my support and are only suggestions. Great work. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "taking three out of four from the Red Sox": Is there a link for this term (I've never heard it before, and I've read quite a few baseball articles on here)?
I'll change "taking" to "winning".
  • Could the long Montville quote be attributed in the text?
  • The "Ruth knocked out" image caption really needs a reference as the events are not referred to in the text, unless I've missed them.
As it happens, there's an article in the NYT on that the last few days.
  • "with a runner in scoring position": Is there "a" missing before scoring, or is it more baseball-speak? (no problem if it's the latter)
Baseball idiom.
  • "According to Appel, "The 1927 New York Yankees. Even today, the words inspire awe ... all baseball success is measured against the '27 team."": I think it may be worth dating this quote to give context to the "today" part.
My difficulty with this is that I just don't think the view of the '27 Yankees is time related. They will most likely be considered great next century. There are certainly other great teams, such as the '61 and '98 Yankees, the '76 Reds, the A's teams of the early 70s, Connie Mack's teams of 1910-14 and 1929-31. But as the 27 Yankees nor any member of them are around to cause their reputation to be diminished, and they cannot play off against other great teams (away from the computer). Any more than Grace, whom you cited, is likely to be diminished though other greats will arise. Would it be proper to say "As of 2014, he is considered a great cricketer".?
  • I wonder is there scope for a "technique" section, or even a comment somewhere. Why was he so good? Is there anything which puts him into a statistical context: how far ahead of his contemporaries was he? And is there anything which judges how good was he as a pitcher? As I say, these are just suggestions and feel free to disregard them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's made fairly clear how far he advanced the home run records. I could add the famous stat that in 1920 he hit more home runs than any team in the American League he was not playing on. There are a fair number of statistics for pitching metrics, wins over replacement for example, that might be helpful but then I would hear from those who see no need for such statistics. It may be best if this was a matter for the article talk page, or, alternatively, the baseball wikiproject if uniformity is needed. Thank you for your comments and your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the discussions of Ruth in one of Bill James's books, and I don't find any statistic really helpful. Babe Ruth leads in win shares, but the amount of time it would take to explain that to the reader means it really isn't that helpful. I suggest again that this be left as a matter for the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: At this point, reluctantly, I'd oppose a FA. I'm not merely startled, but astonished, that a four paragraph lead has just one in-line citation. There are many statements in that lead that are uncited, among them being that Ruth is considered the greatest player of all time, one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture, that he was a larger-than-life figure, that he had a reckless lifestyle marked by drinking and womanizing, and so on. There is no way that any article should have such strong statements go uncited, let alone the lead of a Featured Article. Ravenswing 07:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand, Ravenswing. The citation in the lede is due to a fact not in the body being cited, that is, the statistics and in particular the OPS and OPS+.. This is perfectly appropriate. Where to put those statistics is still in play, but the lede is MOS-compliant, in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also the fact that WP:WHYCITE (part of the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources) states explicitly "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article..."; almost all of the information in the lede is referenced a bit further on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and I have sourced the bit that is not in the body (principally the OPS stats). Although I said above that Babe Ruth statistics in general do not require citation as there is no dispute about them, OPS is obscure enough that in an excess of caution, I cited it. It would probably be best if Ravenswing took another look at the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we have the minimum customary qualifications for promotion, I fully understand that because of Ravenswing's oppose, even though it is not actionable (I could remove the OPS stats and cite from the lede, but what then?) and not consistent with WP:LEDE, the coordinators want to wait on this one. I'm in no hurry. July 11 still is a ways off.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I don't think there's any reason to wait. The oppose is well-intentioned but is a non-issue and therefore unactionable. I would've liked to comment myself as an Aussie with some rudimentary knowledge of baseball and its history but I think that would be a bit indulgent -- the article has been written and reviewed by some of FAC's most experienced editors so I don't think it needs me to join in and thereby recuse myself from delegate duties. N.B. I did note several duplinks but I see the question has already been raised and, given the article's length, I can well believe those remaining are justified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2014 (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/Babe_Ruth/archive2&oldid=1138455297"