Moe Berg

Not really a self-nom, as all I did was a little copy-editing and one or two minor additions when I came across the article today. This is a comprehensive look at one of the most enigmatic baseball players in history. Indrian 23:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Having read The Catcher Was a Spy years ago, I expected to see more about Berg's post-baseball career, both the spy part and his later life, which this article covers very quickly and without much detail. And there's very little mention made of Berg's odd personal quirks (and/or mental illness). I'm not objecting, because there may be enough in the article already to justify FA status, but I'd like to see more space devoted to the non-baseball parts of Berg's life. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I did the major rewrite of the article, also having read The Catcher Was a Spy, and I didn't see very much to put in there about his post OSS time. There seems to be little really known about it and there wasn't really anything significant that he did. All he did was wander around living off other people's generosity. I could be mentioned that he lived with his brother until 1964 and them moved in with his sister, but other than that, he didn't accomplish anything after he got back from the war.

• Object:
  • Two untagged images
  • Needs a copyedit (e.g. "Roseville offered Bernard everything her every wanted in a neighborhood" and the fact that he is often referred to as Moe and not Berg)
  • Heading titles should not have capital letters at the start of each word
    • One related thing... too many of the headings begin with the word Berg, to the point where it's actually noticeable upon a casual read through the text. A heading like Berg's first trip to Japan could be renamed First trip to Japan and still be useful enough as a heading. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 15:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sentences like "Berg had an outstanding day by going 2-4 with a single and a double and made several marvelous plays at shortstop" assume familiarity with baseball
  • Berg the coach needs to be expanded
  • Berg becomes a spy could do with an expansion, it is the main thing that would make Berg unique from other baseballers and is barely detailed enough It would be good if Berg becomes a spy was expanded, but I don't see it as blocking this article from becoming featured. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• plattopus^{is this thing on?} 12:53, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of the images and the headings. There's not much that can be done about expanding his coaching section as there is very little information about what he did other than he was the bullpen coach. How would you suggest the sentance "Berg had an outstanding day by going 2-4 with a single and a double and made several marvelous plays at shortstop" be modified for the non-baseball enthusist? I agree a little more can be said about his spying days and I'll get on that soon. About his post-spy days there is little useful information because he really didn't accomplish anything. Gorrister 14:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I couldn't tell you how to improve that sentence... I have no idea what it means, being a non-enthusiast myself. :D What do the 2 and 4 in "2-4" mean, and what is a single and a double? If you explain these terms once at their first usage, you could use the terminology through the article without fear of people misunderstanding. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 15:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • How about this: "Berg had an outstanding day by getting two hits in four at-bats (2-4) with a single and a double and made several marvelous plays at shortstop."? Gorrister 17:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Excellent. I was unaware that there were 'pedia articles on those terms, but that is the ideal solution. I would suggest going through the rest of the article looking for terms that might assume familiarity with baseball or another subject, and either explain them or wikilink to their articles. Regardless, my objection is withdrawn and I now Support this article's candidacy. plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Object Stylistically, this is very choppy prose, and is WAY overlinked, with virtually every date, country, city, and Japanese and American university underlined. I started to amend this, but got a headache. Substantively, for starters the external link given to look up Berg's stats begins by saying he was a "Math major" at Princeton, not modern languages. Any sports fan reading this would be surprised to be told that Berg's magazine article "Pitchers and Catchers" "remains, even today, the most concise primer on the essential art of baseball". The headings are also curious: "Joins the Red Sox" deals mostly with his quiz show appearance, and "Spying for the U.S." includes the (glossed over) last decades of his life, and his death. The guy deserves better. now Support Sfahey 03:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• You're right, almost every date, country, city and university is linked, as I think should be. There's no reason to leave out links if they are unique. Except for some years, most of the links are unique and should be left. About the external links - Baseball-Reference is the defacto source of baseball statistics on the web. The part about him being a math major was added by the page sponser, not the web site itself. As for the last decades of his life, there wasn't much to speak of. He wandered from place to place living of the kindness of others. Feel free to add more about his life after WWII. Gorrister 10:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I do not think it is possible for an article to be overlinked. Linking ability is one of wikipedia's strengths. Also, you should be more familiar with baseball reference.com before claiming that anything in the sponsor section should be considered researched and accurate. You may have a point about the headings, but I am not really sure that your objection has anything else that is actionable and is really that valid. Indrian 17:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is difficult to believe this when you went on to make a huge number of subsequent improvements in the article. Point well-taken though about the ext.link thing, as I believe now I understand where that bogus insert came from. Sfahey 02:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, just because I think an article is already good enough to be a featured article does not mean I do not think it can be improved. I am not quite sure what this statement is implying. Anyway, do you have any further objections after said improvements? Indrian 03:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why is everyone so testy here? What I was implying is that you (and others) went and fixed several of the things to which I objected, after claiming that said objections were not valid. I believe that the huge number of needed changes you found belies your insistence that the article was already "feature" ready. I basically had five objections :

1. The prose was substandard. Indrian's copious rewrite remedied this. 2. The headings did not apply to their content. This has been fixed as well. 3. There were some unfounded statements. Of the two I referred to specifically, in one apparently it was the external link which was wrong, and the second has been fixed. The only one I find on a reread is in the lead: "Casey Stengel" (talk about the pot calling the kettle black) describing him "'best' as the 'strangest' ..." again insults the subject, who deserves better. 4. I still think it is way overlinked, including MANY unimportant dates, and terms like "Europe", "Bell and Howell", and dozens more. Sfahey 22:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Indrian, your comment is not an actionable set of objections (apart from the beef with headings) and therefore shouldn't be considered a valid vote. And besides, there's not such think as too many links. That's the entire point of a hypertext encyclopedia. -- plattopus^{is this thing on?} 18:53, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Opinions differ on over/underlinking: please see Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. I have to say that I agree with Sfahey, and I think these responses are a little defensive. Linking every month and place name seems excessive to me. Also, Sfahey's remarks on the prose style, Berg's magazine article, headings, and echoing my concern about the brevity of the last (post-baseball life) section seem fixable to me, and have not been addressed. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like Rbellin (and the site he cites) says, links should be relevant to the context. It is unlikely that someone reading up on MBerg wants to link to "quiz shows", random dates and years, or Tokyo univerities. Might as well link to every noun and number! The article is a mess of red and blue underlinings. And please whoever left a note on my page, it's not signed. Sfahey 14:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you go by that strictly, then why would you hyperlink any date unless something world shattering happened (Dec 7, Sept 11, etc) that directly releates to the article at hand. If I'm writing an article about baseball and the date December 7 comes up, but has nothing to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, does that mean that I shouldn't hyperlink the date? I disagree. Maybe quiz show doesn't need to be hyperlinked and individual months might not be needed as well, but I think unique places (incuding foreign universities) should be. That's one of the beauties of Wikipedia. I agree that identical dates near each other should not both be linked, but I do think that every unique date and unique year and unique place and, and, and, ... should be. Gorrister 14:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Sorry about not sigining you page when I left my last comment.)

• RBellin above suggested reading the relevant section on wiki-links. Print encyclopedias generally link (by boldfacing or underlying) items relevant to the topic of the article. The idea is that, for example, someone who looked up "Ted Williams" might want to know that that encyclopedia also included articles on "Triple Crown" and "Boston Red Sox". They might also highlight/link "Fishing" or "Left Fielder", but not "divorce" or "1948". Wikipedia is of course more flexible, but the principle is the same. Per the section mentioned above, landmark dates should be linked, but not the dates of every time a guy gets traded. This article has been improved by whoever redid the sectioning. Unfortunately however, I just re-read one section, where the number of required copyedits alone keeps me from changing my vote. Sfahey 04:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was going of some past feature articles to determine if they were wikilinked in a similar way to this on or where "less linked". I found with Brian Close that not only was every unique year linked but so where comedian, apartheid and just about every geographical location mentioned. Lottie Dod is very similar, as are non-atheletes Mark Antony, Batman and Isaac Asimov. I admit that the article could use a lot of copy editing - I did the major rewrite and I know how awful my written communication is (one of the reasons I started contributing was to improve it). When reading my writing, I'll admit that it looks like english is my second language and not my primary, but if copy editing is the only think really holding this article back, then that should be take care of quite easily.

• • • The magazine thing has already been fixed and I agreed that the headings could use work. The post-baseball life of any baseball player is usually not worth remarking on. They are ordinary men by and large and live out an unremarkable retirement, even when they do some pretty unusual things like Berg did. The highlights of his OSS service have already been recorded, and his post-World War II life is unremarkable. Since you have read "The Catcher was a Spy," could you elaborate upon what of importance has been left out? Just saying that you expected more does not provide enough detail to improve the article. As for being defensive, some of Sfahey's statements were provocative, particularly his comment that "the guy deserved better" when he has only limited knowledge of the subject as evinced by his mistake regarding Baseball-Reference.com. Indrian 22:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • The headings are looking better now. It's been a long time since I read The Catcher was a Spy, but I vaguely recall there being more to the story of Berg's Europe trip with the OSS looking for physicists, and the Heisenberg business, all of which gets one short paragraph in the article. And it really feels unbalanced to give essentially two sentences to the last 25 years of the man's life. Also, a brief note on the References entry for the baseball-reference.com link (assuming we know his Princeton major is correct and the sponsor has it wrong) would be appropriate, since this is certainly a little confusing. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A couple of reason for the brevity of his OSS work and post WWII life are that he was a baseball player for 19 years while a spy for only 4. What he did as a spy was not all that astounding because his mission, to find out the progress of the German bomb, was made moot when the allies discovered that there was no German bomb. As for his life after WWII, there is really nothing to offer the reader of any substance. The Catcher Was a Spy, however good it was (and I did enjoy it), spent too much time on how he would go from here to there, living off other people, doing nothing with his talents, trying to convince others he was still a spy. Also, most spys will tell you that he wasn't a very good spy. Spies are supposed to blend in and not be noticed, and above all, nobody should know they are a spy. Berg would almost advertise it by hushing people or outright ignoring them when he passed somebody on the street that recoginzed him. Just my 2 1/2 cents. Gorrister 12:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have done a more extensive copy edit, rearraged and renamed some headings, and added some more information, particularly to his later life. I would appreciate an update on what people think of the article with these changes and what additional work may need to be done. Indrian 21:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice job on the copy editing. I think the article has moved far enough away from when I edited that I now feel comfortable voting. You took out a couple of things I might have left in, like the managers names of the Robins & Giants. They were important because it was the personality of the managers that helped Berg decide which team to sign with. Other than that, I think you did a real good job in straightening out my inability to write a coherent sentence. Gorrister 11:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I feel this article is adequate to meet the FA standard at this point, though it's a borderline case and I'd understand if others objected to it. It could still use a full pass through to improve the writing's fluency and style. The coverage of Berg's post-baseball life still looks too slim to me. But I find it just about good enough. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good team effort on this now fine article. Credit also should go to whoever chose to leave it on the list long enough for it to reach current state. (judges, n.b.: I also "voted" way up top, where I had made my original objection) Sfahey 18:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)