Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 6, 2016

• "The team, which became the Yankees in 1913" ... what were they before? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Several points:
  • It's not clear; see the sentence just before 1903–12: Early years. Explaining would take more space than we've got available here.
  • As a reader, why would I want to know? That team didn't do anything significant, and this TFA text is a very short story about the Yankees.
  • If the Yankees weren't an expansion team, then the former team was the "Orioles" ... which would be confusing, since it had nothing to do with the later Orioles.
  • I respect the article writers' preferences when I can, and they decided not to mention the first team in the lead. It's a reasonable choice.
  • Finally, a fundamental question of style is implicated here, and I'd like to talk about that, but I don't know your preferences ... are there any style guides or books about writing you particularly like? - Dank (push to talk)
    • Thanks. My mistake - I've not read the article, so wasn't aware it was tricky. Not a style issue, so far as I'm concerned, just thought it begged the question. Now I understand that it begs the question in part because there's a question! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• "New York's Murderers' Row lineup" ... what's the significance of the apparently redundant "New York's"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed to "the team's", though I note that it's a not-uncommon sports style to refer to the city as an alias for the team early in the piece. If you first use the city that way later on (as we do now), there's a small chance it will confuse readers. But my own preference is the same as yours, so I changed it.
    • The fix is a good one. I understand that the city is an alias, I thought it was a redundancy, not a lack of clarity. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• What's a "clubhouse dispute"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed to "management disputes".
    • Clear! Thanks. --14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• It'd be useful to have some context as to whether 27 World Series wins is a lot (as I suppose) or average, compared to the all-time records. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Added "a record". There were 16 teams in the Major Leagues until the 1960s, when 8 were added, and a couple more in the 70s. So, yes, 27 was a lot of wins, since it's just under a quarter of the total championships played.
    • Ace, ta --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• "nine times during the next 11 years" - can't see cited material on this in the article (I was checking whether the run really did, as implied, follow the previously mentioned run or include it. The former is implied, but the latter would be more logical, as the better claim would surely include it, unless there was a gap, which, it is implied, there wasn't) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see a prose problem here. Is it factually wrong or lacking a citation? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I could only see it mentioned in the lead, where understandably it's not cited. So it seems to be missing from the body text. But the implication is that it's back to back runs of 5 consecutive wins followed by 9 appearances in the WS in 11 years, which means a total of 14 appearances in 16 years. If that's the case, it's a much bigger claim and it'd be more likely to be in the article. The fact that it isn't made me suspect that the 9 in 11 includes the five wins. Because it's not cited, or even mentioned in the body copy I didn't know how to check. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a good question for the article talk page or nominator's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I checked out our article on World Series winners. It seems I needn't have worried, the stat is right. Just needs sourcing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)