Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article, barring any objections, as my contributions have been minimal, and have previously only participated as a pre-reviewer on the talk page. Please allow up to one week for me to complete my review, after which, for an article of this magnitude, I would be more than willing to allow two weeks for any issues to be addressed. Go Phightins! 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not adequately summarize the content of the article, particularly in relation to the history section, media section, and steroid use. Look to incorporate a brief one sentence summary of each section within the article into the lead, for a total of three solid paragraphs. See the lead in National Football League for an example. Layout, word choice, and lists are adequate as they stand. I am also concerned by the statement that the regular season is played in April to September, as there have been regular season games in late March or early October. I would suggest removing it entirely.

   Lead now looks solid.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References seem predominantly reliable, however some references appear to be missing key information, whether publication dates, access dates, works, publishers, etc. ... make sure they have everything they need. During my heavy scrutiny reading, I will look for original research and point out. A lot of items that are not currently cited need to be. Instances of original research noted in section-by-section analysis

   Looks much better citation-wise, which encompasses each of the final two above subpoints.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Definitely seems to hit major points, though cross referencing with NHL, NFL, and NBA would be wise, to make sure they do not include sections that this one misses. I will do that, but if you would like to, please do ahead. The length seems OK, but I will read through specifically to watch for tangential information. Length of sections is too long - ensure that it is written in summary style.

   Less tangential and more focused - in other words, there are still some tangential sections, but they pivot and focus on the main point ... in an FA review, some might be edited out, but they do not detract from the article being focused, which is the requirement for GA.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Have yet to read specifically for this purpose, but will update when I do. It is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Good here, although protection log is somewhat disconcerting, although not atypical for high traffic articles such as this one.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Have yet to investigate which if any images are claiming fair use (if you could point out, that could save me some time), but they all seem to be relevant illustrations.

   Images are informative, and best as I can tell, all are used legitimately.

7. Overall: A good start, but many issues remain right now, primarily related to drugs section, rampant original research/uncited material, ensuring it is written in summary style.

   Pass/Fail:

I recently ran a Checklinks report, and the findings are here ... there are quite a few dead links. According to Wikipedia policy, having dead links cannot, in and of itself, be a hindrance to achieving GA criteria, however it would be ideal if we could find archived copies of the articles or alternate sources to assist readers who may wish to corroborate or read for additional information, as well as for verification purposes. Go Phightins! 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking very close to ready. I am very busy on weekdays, so I may not respond swiftly to this. Go Phightins!, any lingering thoughts/concerns regarding this? Best, Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - as mentioned, this is a huge topic, so I have no problem allowing at least two weeks for response to my comments. Let me know when you are all done and I will give it a final read through, and based on what I am seeing so far, we will likely be in pretty good shape. Thanks to both you and Eric for all your work on this! Go Phightins! 01:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. I've been largely doing other things for a few days but still have this on my radar. I was thinking of breaking up League organization and placing its contents other places (largely within History). As is, I think it skips around quite a bit and it seems awkward to me that we discuss things like expansion in different places. Just wanted to avoid moving around a big section mid-review without some discussion. Will also work on some of the remaining items in the review. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, EricEnfermero, I apologize for not responding timely. It has been a busy week and it was my birthday yesterday (5 December), so between school, Indoor Track, and celebrating my birthday, it was very busy and I feel like I [accidentally] hung you dry for the past few days. Anyway, this page is disorganized at this point. Do you mind updating the section-by-section analysis for me? Also, I'd like to make note that this article came off semi-protection (1 month duration) on 3 December. There's only been one case of vandalism since, but if you notice an increase in vandalism, report it to RFPP immediately. Best. Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 01:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section-by-Section analysis

Organizational structure

• The first two paragraphs could probably be combined into one cohesive one. --  Done
• How has the ruling been weakened? --  Done
• The third paragraph is an area of concern – first, citation for six executive VPs is necessary, especially in light of the latter information. A third party clarification would be ideal, otherwise, we simply must state that there are five EVPs. Also, write out months (just as a minor point). --  Done
• Cite that its charter states it holds editorial independence, yet is under same ownership group. --  Doing...
• Give a sentence or two history on MLB Network, as well, as presently, it just floats out of nowhere. --  Doing...

League organization

• It is best to, at all costs, avoid "as of" statements. Instead, give a historical context. For example, instead of "As of 2013, MLB is...", say something to the effect of, "Prior to the 2013 season, MLB reorganized its league alignment, moving the Houston Astros from the National League to the American League, which put 15 teams in each", so as a) to provide the reader with the tidbit, and b) to prevent a reader from questioning, wondering if as of the time of their reading, is that still true.
• First sentence of second paragraph needs a reference ... whenever a word that can carry a pejorative connotation such as "unilaterally" enters the picture, citations are key.

• Citation was added, but I removed "unilaterally" just to make it more encyclopedic. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Either remove or cite the last sentence of that same paragraph ... if it cannot be cited (it should be able to be, however, as I am 99% sure it is true), remove it, as it is not pertinent to the underlying concept of the paragraph.

• Removed it. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I almost wonder if the first and last paragraphs could be amalgamated, as they seem to discuss the same topic, yet neither seems complete without information from the other.
  • All of this is  done.
• That's where I will stop for this evening. I will return tomorrow, Sportsguy17 and EricEnfermero. Go Phightins! 02:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

• Sources to substantiate the first part of the first paragraph would be ideal - there appears to be a good source in History of baseball in the United States called Total baseball: the ultimate baseball encyclopedia that may be available either online or via a local library - I can look around me if you cannot get your hands on it, that could substantiate much of the content, and perhaps also flesh it out some.
• In the last two paragraphs of the first subsection, clarify what NA stands for.
• "The agreement also set up a formal classification system for independent minor leagues that regulated the dollar value of contracts, the forerunner of today's system that was refined by Branch Rickey." - dangling modifier here ... did Branch Rickey refine today's system or the original system?
• Second paragraph of defunct leagues section needs substantiation.

• Removed, unable to source it. Left with a very short section, merged it into the previous one (Founding).

• Explain what the Baltimore Chop is in the dead ball era section.  Done
• How did the dead ball era materialize? There is a separate article that may be able to provide information on this. There is also a good quote set off in a quote box on the spin off article that provides a solid insight that may, if you choose, be suitable for inclusion.

• Added a little here, but will come back and look at the quote. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 01:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The World War II era section needs some context explaining why the seasons would not have gone on, and if any seasons were ever missed - as it stands now, we jump right into a season might not happen but it did. "Fleshing out" is necessary.

• I added a little bit about the war's drain on MLB players and the problems created by blackout restrictions that might have could have caused the cancellation of the '42 season. Let me know what you think. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Though must would understand this for obvious reasons, it might be worth explaining that prior to Jackie Robinson, MLB was exclusively white, as well as explaining the Negro Leagues, as there is nothing in the article about that.

• I added some sourced info. It actually starts in the WWII section (some less talented players got a shot during the war, but black players were confined to the Negro leagues). I think it makes a nice transition, but will tweak if necessary. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Add a source for last two sentences of color barrier section.  Done
• In the expansion section, there are citation issues - whenever you are discussing controversy, it is important to, if possible, quantify it, and especially if quantifying it is not possible, but in either case, it needs ample citations ... the expansion section has about half of the paragraphs without any source substantiation, and the first one is particularly in need of citations.
• Pitching domination and rule changes section is nice. Ample details, yet maintains summary style. Nice.
• While the second paragraph of the multi-purpose section is informative, it looks like original research, but could be substantiated with sources.
• Power age section is a little confusing - it seems to imply the power age is still going on, when in fact I don't believe it is. More sources are necessary ... it should be noted that of the pitcher listed only a handful are still active.

Uniforms

• Introduction to uniforms is nice as well as early history, however we need sources on road uniforms and alternate uniforms. --  Doing...
• Last paragraph also seems original researchish, so more sources are needed. --  Done

Season structure

• Some more original research here, specifically related to coinciding with spring break and autograph access. These should be relatively easily sourced, however.
• Regarding the CBS Sports source, that will likely be changed come 2014 spring training. Look to archive with an online archiving tool to prevent WP:LINKROT.
• In the regular season section, there is more original research, which is frankly becoming somewhat of an issue that needs rectification prior to this article being able to achieve GA status.
• The all-star game section, while informative, is longer than the regular season section - this is an issue; there already is a content fork that spins off the main article specifically on the all star game, so ensure that in MLB, it is written in summary style. A one paragraph summary should more than suffice.
• Postseason section is OK, though the first part of the paragraph immediately succeeding the numbered list could probably be removed, as it seems like that could be better covered in the content fork article.
• First sentence in paragraph after that needs a source.
• While I like the table, I am not 100% sure it belongs in this article, but I would lean that it should, as it talks about champions of the league in question, so yes, let's keep it.

International play

• The first source (currently number 97, though that may change) violates WP:CIRCULAR. We need a third-party source for that.  Done
• Remainder of that section suffers a little bit from recentism, but overall is OK.
  • All is  done

Steroid policy

• Needs background on methodology and reasoning for implementation of the steroid policy, which is not adequately covered at any point in the article. Think BALCO.
• I am not sure on this section, and would seek a second opinion on what should and should not be included. Look at the main article, which Resolute wrote; perhaps he could shed some light on what should be included on the MLB main article.

MLB in Media

• A "topic sentence" for the television section seems necessary, as we jump right into which networks cover what when.  Done
• Last sentence of TV section could use a source.  Done
• The blackout section is written rather confusingly, but appears to be reasonably well-substantiated, but more sources are always ideal.  Done
• Radio and internet section is solid, though it should be clarified that the radio policy of teams employing their own announcers is not exclusive to radio - they employ their own TV announcers as well.
• Each assertion that a network shows games occasionally internationally needs a source, yet not all have them.  Done

Current franchises

• That section is just fine.

That concludes section-by-section analysis. Go Phightins! 20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave the summarization stuff to EricEnfermero since he is much better at it than I am, and I'll find sources and do general clean ups on the writing. Also, the images appear to be good, but I want you to check for yourself. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 00:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Good article good ! Thanks for all your work, and I will list this as a GA. Go Phightins! 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]