Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review twice before this, but I have done extensive work on the article's content, structure and references since. I'm looking to possibly nominate this for FAC sometime soon. I'm looking for any suggestions here! I need someone else less familiar with the system to run through it and tell me if everything makes sense and looks good. Thanks!

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article that explains a process that many readers might otherwise find mysterious. I have a few suggestions for improvement. None is complicated or involves any great change.

Lead

• "currently in effect between" - Delete "currently"?
• "NPB players have never been subject to the traditional Rule 4 Draft" - A brief in-text explanation would be helpful here for readers who will not have any idea what Rule 4 is about. Suggestion: "NPB players have never been subject to the traditional Rule 4 Draft that governs how MLB teams acquire amateur players." Or something like that.
• "as seen when pitcher Hideki Irabu was dealt to a MLB team despite stating he did not want to" - I think you need "did not want to be traded" for the sentence to make sense.
• "If the MLB team cannot come to a contract agreement with the posted player, then no fee is paid, and the player's rights revert back to his NPB team." - This could be tightened just a bit by deleting "back".

All great suggestions, all changed. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "was awarded the California League Rookie of the Year award" - Repetition of "award". Suggestion: "was named California League Rookie of the Year"
• "After putting up good pitching statistics as a reliever, Giants' executives decided to exercise a clause in their contract with the Hawks that allowed them to sign one of the three NPB exchange prospects to a contract" - The Giants' executives didn't put up good pitching statistics. Perhaps "After Murikami put up good pitching statistics... "?
• "the Giants agreed to send Murakami back to Japan after the upcoming 1965 season" - Delete "upcoming"?
• "In addition to Soriano disliking the Japanese's intense practice schedule, the Carp denied him a salary increase from $45,000" - A bit awkward. How about "Soriano disliked the intense Japanese practice schedule, and the Carp denied... "?

Again, all great suggestions, all changed. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Process

• "MLB teams submit sealed bids (in USD)" - Spell out as well on first use, thus: "MLB teams submit sealed bids in in U.S. dollars (USD)"?
• "and the player's rights revert back to his NPB team" - Delete "back"?

Done! --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past postings

• "These contracts range from $52 million on the high end to $1.4 million on the low end" - Tighten by deleting "on the high end" and "on the low end"?

Ha, ya, a bit redundant, eh? Done. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful postings

• "(US$800,404 in 2003)" - Suggestion: "($800,404 in 2003)". There's no need to repeat the US.
• "(US$594,453 in 2009) contract" - Ditto for this one.

Hm, not sure why I added this in the first place. Thanks. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and criticism

• "a high bid simply to deprive the New York Yankees' an opportunity to negotiate with Matsuzaka" - Something's odd about "Yankees' an opportunity". How about "to deprive the New York Yankees of an opportunity"?
• "Sheinin suggests that, if the negotiations were to fail, Boras could take legal action." - Since the preceding sentences refer to this incident in past tense, it would be best to stick to past tense, thus: "Sheinin suggested that... ".
• "Boras does not believe that the transfer fee should affect a player's compensation in any way" - Maybe "Boras did not believe... " Also, delete "in any way"?
• "Kurkjian claims that a number of other MLB executives" - Delete "a number of"?

All corrected. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

• The citations use a mixture of m-d-y dates and yyyy-mm-dd dates. You can use either format, but it should be used consistently throughout the references.

I think I like the m-d-y best, so I will start converting yyyy-mm-dd ASAP. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• Alfonso Soriano would be better positioned on the left so that he looks into the page rather than out. This draws the reader's eye into the article.

I never think of little details such as this! Great suggestion. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

• I had trouble throughout with constructions like "problems arose when NPB players began playing in MLB". I kept wanting to change "in MLB" to "in the MLB", parallel to "in the NBA", I suppose, but realized this would be incorrect. Maybe "in the United States" would be an acceptable workaround or in the Major Leagues or some combination of these here and there where these constructions occur.

I know what you mean, I originally had "the" in front of these acronyms originally, but then realized it was incorrect. I'll poke around a little and see what can be done to avoid these instances. --Torsodog^Talk 19:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain comments

Good work here! This was an interesting read. I had no idea this system existed. I've outlined below what I see as problems that should be fixed before taking this to FAC.

• "The posting system was created to address both problems." Can we make this active voice and specify who created it? Example: "MLB and NPB worked together to create the posting system to address both problems."
• The lead is good! I am interested to read more.
• Just a pointer.. whenever you can replace the phrase "in order to" with simply "to" without changing the meaning, it's good to do go.
• "An agreement was reached, and the Giants agreed ..." I think just writing "The Giants agreed ..." wouldn't change the meaning and would eliminate a redundancy.
• "The posting system was created as a combined reaction ..." Same comment about passive voice as above.
• I was left with a few questions after reading the Process section that indicate it needs fleshing out a bit more: "If the team consents, the player is presented to the MLB Commissioner." What happens if the player wants to be posted and the team doesn't content? Alternately, what happens if a team wants to post a player and he doesn't consent?
• "Shocking both American and Japanese baseball executives, Matsuzaka received a high bid of $51.1 million." This is a dangling modifier. Matsuzaka didn't shock the executives, the bid amount did. Fix by rewording to something like "Matsuzaka's bid amount of $51.5 million shocked American and Japanese baseball executives." (You don't need the "both" either)
• I'm concerned that not all views have been represented in the Controversy and criticism section. You have the views of Boras and of an ESPN writer, but that's about it. I think this will have to be expanded to include views on both sides of the issue to maintain a neutral tone. --Laser brain (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to run through the article! I addressed the prose changes you suggested here. However, the content additions will take a little time. I don't really know if the questions you posed about how it is decided that a player will be posted have ever been addressed. I hope they have been though because they are very valid questions, and I hope to find the answers to them. The Controversy and criticism section is also a valid concern. I had concerns about it myself, however, it is hard for me to find Japanese sources because of my limited knowledge of the language. I will do what I can though. Thanks again for the help! --Torsodog^Talk 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]