Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak/archive1

< 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 16:29, 24 May 2014 [1].


Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WP:MLB, WP:DODGERS, WP:SOCAL, WP:Los Angeles--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified prior FAC discussants: Indrian, Jimfbleak, Sportsguy17 (also GA reviewer), Crisco 1492, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (also PR discussant) and Beerest 2--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified PR discussant Figureskatingfan--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified DYK reviewer Bloom6132--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most important streaks/records in baseball/sports history. I have addressed the concerns of the prior FAC (both during the prior FAC and after it) and taken the article through a PR.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that this article has had a page move, which has fooled the tool that presents prior discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - one of my major concerns from the previous FAC was the "play-by-play tables". I understand what they are because I am familiar with baseball, but your typical reader may not understand what they are (e.g. there's no legend to what the abbreviations mean). Furthermore, there is no context given to explain why these tables are notable - are these particular innings significant because they were close calls or because of the people Hershiser had to face? What was the criteria used to select these innings versus others? To be honest, I think they all need to be removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with anything on WP, they were included because they were what the secondary sources were talking about. During the streak, the secondary sources have discussed certain innings as being interesting for one reason or another. I am not sure if there is any one reason why they have all been discussed in the media, but these are the innnings that have been discussed. I summarized them in table format because that is what helps me understand what happened. I was thinking that by providing tables baseball fans could have an easy glance at the interesting innings, while the prose presents similar content for the non-baseball fan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even so, simply detailing the innings in question in tables without any explanation is rather jarring. I think prose would be perfectly suitable way to highlight them. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems clearer to me in table form. I will take a look at making the legend idea that you mentioned for these tables before removing them. Are you fine with the other tables (box scores and the opening table)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other tables are great. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the late comment, but the legend table seems to make for way too many tables (you've got a game-by-game table, a legend, an individual game box score, and an inning play-by-play). There is still no explanation in the article as to what the inning summary tables are, nor is there any context for their inclusion. I don't think the basic Wikipedia reader, even with a legend, will be able to understand what the tables are conveying. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, since nothing has been done to contextualize these "trouble inning play-by-play" tables for casual readers, I'm going to have to oppose. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen the legend, and as I mentioned, its addition only seems to overwhelm the article more with tables. If you want a table to be collapsed by default, you should add "collapsible collapsed" as a parameter of a table's class (next to "wikitable"). Still, the point I've been trying to make is that there is no prose in the article that explains what these tables are for or why these innings are being detailed over others. You've told me the reason here, but there's nothing in the article that explains it for casual readers. You need to account for readers having no familiarity with Orel Hershiser, the concept of consecutive scoreless innings, or baseball at all. For that reason, I don't see why the play-by-play tables are needed when prose could suffice. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In terms of "why these innings are being detailed over others", it is because these are the innings described in the reliable sources. I'll try collapsing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no idea why, for the first game of the streak, the fifth inning is detailed; the streak started after that inning, so it is not even included in the streak ... Go Phightins! 19:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The three most important innnings of the streak are the inning that define its start, the inning that define its end and the inning in which the record is broken. That inning defines its start.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't explain why we include these types of details. Since this is the only baseball article of its type, I will refer to another sport. In 2012 Alabama Crimson Tide football team we don't explain to the reader that we detail in a scoring summary dropdown each play that resulted in a score. It is just obvious that every play that resulted in a score is worth having in an article. Here for a shutout, it is when runners are in scoring position and don't score that is interesting. There is nowhere in the prose where we need to tell the reader we are detailing all such plays, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The purpose and notability of a scoring summary for any sports game is inherently obvious. It is a staple of the game's box score, and it summarizes the exact plays of a game you would expect there to be details for. However, the same cannot be said for an excerpt of the baseball game's play-by-play where no scoring took place. Unless you can conceive a way to contextualize the tables for casual readers, I cannot support any promotion of this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not know what you mean by contextualize the tables for the readers. The tables are contextualized by the prose because they are the same innings that we describe in the prose for each game. In an article about a shutout streak, which articles would you expect to receive extra close attention. In my mind, it would be the innings that all the secondary sources talk about. The innings that have been chosen for the tables are no more unusual than the innings that have been chosen for the prose. Why do you only want me to explain why I detail them in the tables, but feel there is no controversy about why I have detailed them in the prose? Are you asking for something like a change in the introduction that defines the article as a summary of his scoreless streak that describes how he continued the streak by averting each close call. I guess I could do that, but you don't seem to find the prose in need of contextualization. You seem to accept the prose that details the close calls, but question the tables which gives an alternate presentation of the same content. If I were to add a sentence to the lead saying that this is an article that presents the streak by detailing all high risk scoring situations would that be sufficient. I have added During the streak, he averted numerous high risk scoring situations, which are described below both in common language and official baseball play-by-play scoring language along with the three innings that defined the beginning, end and record-breaking inning of the streak. to the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I did not closely scrutinize each table with the surrounding text enough, because I initially thought the innings being detailed in the tables had not been covered in the prose. I still think they are mostly redundant, but if you are committed to keeping them, I think it would at least benefit the article to modify the contents of the table to be more readable and less of a copy/paste job from Baseball-Reference. For example, the syntax used to describe which bases are occupied is not very obvious or commonly seen. The "result of play" column only accounts for outs or runs, when there are many other outcomes that occur. A few tweaks to these items would go a long way. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think we should be shooting for "obvious or commonly seen" in terms of Baseball scorekeeping language. There are ways to combine bases occupied with result of play to show how runners advance. There are also varying levels of detail to a play by play. E.g., see a game from last night. You could have pitch-by-pitch detail. There are a wide variety of levels of detail, each right in its own respect. Are there types of details that you think are instrumental that are not currently included in the level of detail being used. I am not sure what direction you want me to take the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you're overcomplicating what I'm asking. The runners on base syntax doesn't need to be a needlessly obtuse --3, 12-, or -2-, it should be represented as "1st, 2nd, and/or 3rd". No casual reader with limited familiarity with baseball will have any idea what the current syntax means, even with a legend. The "result of play" column also needs to account for more than just an out or run – batters reaching base is an outcome that is completely ignored. If you don't agree with adding this to the relevant plays, then remove the column (as the play description column also covers this). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have fixed the baserunner column. I think the "result of play" column serves to eliminate confusion of play descriptions like "Ground out: P-SS/Forceout at 2B", which some readers might think means tow outs were recorded. Thus, I don't agree that it is redundant with the play description column.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would abbreviate the baserunners as either "1st/1B, 2nd/2B, or 3rd/3B" for concision. However, the "result of play" column doesn't need to be abbreviated as "O" and "R". And I must continue to stress how it is currently lacking. It should have a value for every batter (e.g. "out", "run(s)", and/or "batter reached base"). Otherwise, it doesn't serve much use in telling the reader what the result of the play was. I would also remove the pitcher column since that is always Hershiser, as well as the opposing team column (you can always indicate the opposing team in the header of the "opposing hitter" column). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have removed the columns that you have suggested. I think what is meant by "result of play", it means what changed about the count that the home plate umpire keeps track of. I use to have a little plastic dohickey for standing behind the plate. It had three dials on it: balls, strikes and outs. If you are the home plate umpire, all you do is keep track of those three things and runs scored. I am not sure what the proper term is because pitchcount and count mean other things. There is a term for the data that the home plate umpire keeps track of. This column represents that. In addition, I think it would be OR of me to take the someone official (or at least validly sourced) information in this column and perturb it with a column of unsourced WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • One last recommendation: perhaps the rows indicating the game situation can be rewritten slightly so they aren't direct copies from Baseball-Reference and thus at risk of copyright violation. For example, instead of "facing 8-9-1", I would clarify "facing 8th, 9th, and 1st positions in batting order". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • My concerns with the tables have been addressed, so I will withdraw my opposition (I haven't reviewed everything about the article though so I can't say I full-on support). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y2kcrazyjoker4, I have now collapsed all the play-by-plays, which I suppose is standard for excerpted play-by-plays (such as the very common scoring summaries in football). Now, what do I do with the legend?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • First sentence of last lead para - consider splitting into two.
  • Early in the entry, acronyms like NL and MLB are used, but the full terms are subsequently spelled out several times.
  • Innings are sometimes described in numerals (5th) and other times with words (fifth).
  • I notice that a slash is used to describe hits per at bats (0/9). I think a dash is the usual convention (0-for-9 or 0-9) - or even better, spelling out the situation for the non-fan (no hits in nine at bats).
  • September 23, 1988: A relay throw generally comes in from the outfield.
  • Same play: The LA Times called it controversial, but then said that the replay showed Butler swinging his arm at the fielder. It sounds like the right call was made on the double play, but the phrase "favorable umpire ruling" (in The streak section) makes it sound like he got a big and possibly undeserved break.
  • Really, the detail on that incident might confuse the situation for a non-fan.
    • The detail is confusing expert sportswriters who have interpreted the situation in various ways. It is a confusing play. I don't think we can expect a simple explanation of a confusing play to experts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is detailed coverage of the Oct 4 postseason game necessary since it didn't impact the streak?
    • Since he pitched 8 scoreless innings in that contest sequentially with the streak, those 8 innings have a lot of significance. Many would credit him with a 67 inning streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison to other streaks: As the other sections extensively refer to Drysdale's streak, this separate section seems redundant.
    • Are you saying this section is redundant with the Drysdale content in the Background or some other section. Although there are other sections that mention the Drsysdale streak, I am not sure any are very redundant with this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that they played for the same team is also mentioned in the lead and Background. The umpire ruling issue is also mentioned in the lead, The streak and September 23, 1988. The Howell streak is mentioned in October 4, 1988. The fractional innings issue is touched on within September 23, 1988. Just not enough unique content to warrant its own section. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 23:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: Bowling Greeen University - Even at that time, I think it was known as Bowling Green State University.

Good job on an entry that covers an important piece of baseball history. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 05:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A small note regarding hits per at bats: 0/9 is the usual convention I am aware of; I have never seen 0-9 used. I agree though that spelling it out would be the best approach. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by reference and prose comments from Go Phightins!
  • The publisher of Baseball-Reference.com is Sports Reference, which probably should be included. Go Phightins! 02:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to respond to this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this was adequately addressed - not all of the references were formatted the same, nor do I think that citing "Baseball-Reference.com/Sports Reference LLC" as the publisher is correct (BR is the work, Sports Reference is the publisher). I've gone through and edited all of the BR references. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "Aftermath" generally has a negative connotation; is there another word that could achieve the desired meaning, such as "consequences", "ensuing coverage", "subsequent coverage", "reaction", "repercussions", etc.? Go Phightins! 02:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck per Y2kcrazyjoker4's edits. Phightins is Gone (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to find relevance in the second and third paragraphs of the lead. For example:
    • One of the batters Hershiser faced in the 59th inning of the streak was Benito Santiago, whose record-setting hitting streak Hershiser had ended the prior season. Does that really belong in the lead? I am not sure that surpasses the threshold not to be trivia, and especially is not a vital component to the streak that warrants mention in the lead.
      • Since the streak was overlooked, this is a difficult call. However, few sources mention Santiago in this way, IIRC. So I have removed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although he completed the ninth inning in each start, the streak's final game lasted 16 innings, of which he only pitched ten. Thus, Hershiser did not match Drysdale's record of six consecutive complete game shutouts. This is a record of consecutive scoreless innings, why bring shutouts into it in the lead? OK.
      • IIRC, A lot of sources mention that Drysdale still has the shutout record. The LEAD is suppose to summarize the important points from the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • During the streak, the Elias Sports Bureau changed its criteria for the official consecutive scoreless innings record for starting pitchers to count only complete scoreless innings, rather than include fractional innings in which one or two outs had been recorded. The obvious question is why. If you are not going to mention that in the lead (which I don't think you should, as again, it does not seem to be a vital component of the streak), I would suggest you remove that sentence from the lead, and discuss it instead in the body.
      • Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies ... Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows." To me, including the Elias Sports Bureau thing without expounding upon it is a teaser.
        • In this case, it was not clear what the record. It would be like if McGwire was chasing the home run record and no one knew whether he had to get to 60 or 61 or do it in 162 or 154 games and then with a few weeks in the season there was finally an official statement. In order to break a record it must be defined and in this case it was defined during the streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but why did they change it? Go Phightins! 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well for a starting pitcher if he pitches an inning in which he surrenders runs it is a bad thing whether they happen with 0 1 or 2 outs it was a bad inning. If he gives up walks and hits but they don't come around until after 2 outs why is that any better than a leadoff homer? Relievers are often tasked with pitching partial innings, sometimes only 1 batter. I don't think much of an explanation of this is relevant to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • So was it a "change" or a "clarification"? Go Phightins! 01:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Some sources say that this was always the official rule although not well known (i.e., a clarification of the actual rule vs. misperception) and others say that this was a change.
  • Conversely to the second and third, the first and fourth paragraphs, in my opinion, are excellent.
  • A few other prose comments:
    • You may want to spell out National League once in the main body of the article, as one could have missed its meaning in the lead. Up to you, though.
    • Despite an emergency appendectomy that delayed his spring training,[8] Hershiser had been NL Baseball Pitcher of the Month in April and a participant in the July 12, 1988 All-Star Game, getting outs against all three batters. Link spring training, and you should also probably explain why the appendectomy warrants a "despite" ... some non-baseball fans likely are not familiar with the importance of spring training to player development.
    • In the eight starts between July 10 and August 14, Hershiser had a 3–4 win–loss record with a 4.76 earned run average (ERA),[11] raising his ERA from 2.46 to 3.06. Non-baseball readers will have no context of what a "good" ERA is ... would it be possible, perhaps, to include the average ERA of pitchers during the season, or somehow contextualize the numbers utilized in the sentence?
      • Where would one get NL average ERAs for 1988?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know. But some context of average ERAs is necessary. Go Phightins! 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is it any more necessary than saying how many home runs the average 1st baseman gets or contextualizing what is a good season for a home run hitter?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, if you are insinuating that there is not enough contextualization in Jim Thome, that is not at all relevant to this FAC. However, I would suggest that non-baseball fans know what a home run is, but do not have any idea what an earned run average is. Maybe you can say what the league leader's ERA was that season, or something, but blithely throwing ERA totals does not cater to those without acute understanding of baseball nuances. Go Phightins! 15:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here you go. Go Phightins! 02:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previously, Walter Johnson of the 1913 Washington Senators had held the record, at 55 2⁄3,[7] with two relief appearances,[15] which gave him a fractional total What record are we talking about? (OK, we both know, but it might be unclear, at this stage, to the reader). You also should probably add "innings pitched" after 55 2/3.
    • The streak spanned Hershiser's 29th through 35th (and final) starts of the 1988 season for the Dodgers, and the 190th through 196th games of his career. to The streak spanned Hershiser's 29th through 35th (and final) starts of the 1988 season for the Dodgers, which were the 190th through 196th games of his career.
    • During the streak, Hershiser lowered his ERA from 2.90 to 2.26. Forty-one of the 59 scoreless innings came on the road This seems like rather choppy succession.
    • Link The Chicago Tribune.
    • During the streak, according to the Chicago Tribune, Hershiser caused opposing teams to leave 30 runners on base; Drysdale, in his streak, left 35.[21] However, USA Today reported that Hershiser left 36 runners on base.[22] Why the discrepancy?
    • At that point in his career, Hershiser was regarded as a "right-handed sinkerball artist" although he did not throw a sinker. That's an odd quote if he did not throw a sinker. I think it warrants some explanation, replacement, or removal.
    • and for being a Cy Young Award for best NL pitcher contender in the local press. how about something like and for contending for the NL Cy Young Award, given to the best NL pitcher
    • Hershiser, however, said that he was primarily focused on his hospitalized newborn son. Whoa! Why does this come out of left field all of a sudden?
    • After Hershiser reached 49 consecutive innings because of what some sources describe as a favorable umpire ruling, the sports media compared him to Drysdale, who had a similar incident occur during his streak. What sort of favorable umpire ruling?
    • Despite the official ruling that only full innings of starting pitchers count toward the record, some of the press continued to refer to the record as 58 2⁄3 innings Whose official ruling?
    • As Hershiser's last remaining start approached,[43][44][45][46][47] the media mentioned that he needed one more complete game shutout to tie the all-time record.[48][49][50] Perhaps some WP:OVERCITE-ing? Thanks.
    • The beginning of the August 30 summary seems to discuss predominantly the circumstances surrounding the start, not actually on his pitching, which is the point of the article. Also, I would write it chronologically, including the fact that they won at the end, but that's up to you.
      • This is the beginning of the streak. I am attempting to describe the setting as the streak began, which is more than "circumstances surrounding the start". It is more like the circumstances surrounding the streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hershiser had been scheduled to pitch against the NL-leading New York Mets (80–54) on Sunday, September 4, but a rainout delayed his performance. As obvious as it is to you and I, a rainout might not be a prevalent concept to some, so it might be worth linking.
    • 'Hershiser struck out Dale Murphy four times, once resorting to a rare sidearm curveball to do so, to the dismay of pitching coach Ron Perranoski, who worried about injuries caused by sidearm pitching.' Um, had he used the sidearm curveball, or for that matter, any sidearm pitching in the past? This sort of comes out of left field ...
      • Orel is not a sidearm pitcher. Look at the picture we have of him. It is implicit that this is a rare pitching motion for him. I don't know what his experience with the motion is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just throwing it out there that he used a sidearm pitch while only insinuating that it was rare is somewhat odd. Go Phightins! 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, how many sidearm pitchers are there in the major leagues. It is odd to see a sidearm pitch in MLB. What is intended is to show that it was considered dangerous not rare. That is what the current text should convey.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Orel and wife Jamie, scheduled induced labor for the following day, an off day for Hershiser. You mentioned that the son was hospitalized earlier, so this seems a little ... bizarre that he hasn't been born as of one of the later starts of the streak. I would suggest removing the first reference to the son, or somehow explaining the chronology in the context of the streak.
      • Also, it seems that the deal with his son seems to get mentioned, and then glossed over, particularly in the September 19 game summary; I think that a quote from Hershiser indicating how it affected him on the mound is warranted, or something to tie it to the streak.
        • I don't see a quote. The source says "Hershiser, the ace of the Dodger staff, can be excused if his mind was elsewhere. His wife, Jamie, is scheduled for induced labor at 6:30 this morning. She attended Wednesday night's game with several friends, all potential chauffeurs in case of an emergency."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are there any alternate articles or literature that might have a quote? It seems like something about which he'd have been asked. Not a hill on which I am willing to die, but would be nice. Go Phightins! 01:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hershiser had ended Padres catcher Benito Santiago's 34-game hitting streak the year before and the Padres were hungry to snap Hershiser's streak. "hungry" is sports nomenclature that probably should not be in a FA.
    • I am not sure I understand what the tables (not the linescores), but the more detailed game tables indicate, and why the specific items shown in them are shown in them. What is their role?
      • did you notice that the first one has a legend? should I copy it to each table?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. these are all the innings that he was in trouble.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I believe someone did either above or in the last FAC, I question how we define "trouble innings". As for understanding what's in them, the legend is good, but would take up a lot of vertical space. Is there a way to make it collapsible? (I don't know what that would mean from an MOS perspective; just thinking aloud) Go Phightins! 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • In practice, these are the innings that the sources describe in the text. When a guy pitches a shutout, the recap usually discusses a couple of close calls. These are the innings that were worth mentioning in the recaps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were many storylines about the streak. No kidding. You can probably remove that, or start by saying Among the many storylines of the streak were ...
    • Drysdale said that he enjoyed rooting for Hershiser because his jersey number, 53, like Drysdale's own number, 55, indicated that Hershiser had been a long shot to make the majors. No one other than the baseball fanatic (e.g., you, me, and some other WP:BASEBALLers) is going to understand why the numbers indicate their non-likelihood to succeed at the MLB level, and frankly, I generally associate that with numbers 60+, as many of the game's top pitchers/players nowadays have numbers in the 50s ... as such, I question the relevance of this information entirely, but at the least, it needs contextualization.
    • Moving back a little, why does only the October 4 start have a game box in the prior section if he made multiple playoff starts? More accurately, why do any have game boxes if they do not count towards the record?
      • In many people's eyes it is wrong not to count the playoff game as part of the streak. Since he unofficially extended his streak to 67 games in a game that counts, this game is shown.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few random reference comments:
    • I am ambivalent on the inclusion of the Dodgers' navbox, but again, it's not a hill on which I am willing to die. So there are my thoughts; at this time, I am not sure the article meets WP:WIAFA criteria 1a-1b, so I will tentatively oppose, however there's nothing unfixable here. Good work! Go Phightins! 23:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- As this has been open six weeks or so with no support for promotion, I'm very close to archiving it, but am also a bit loathe to do so when someone else is about to comment, the result of which may influence another reviewer's final opinion. Christine, if you can go through it shortly, I'll give you the time to do it. Also I note that there's been discussion on sources but no image license check that I could see, so we'll need that too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskatingfan was a PR discussant, so I am not expecting her review to be lengthy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskatingfan's comments

Sorry it took me a little while to get over here; as always, my excuse is busyness both here and IRL. Too many irons in the fire, as they say! I'm not sure how much more I can add, but I'll look over this article as a non-baseball fan and as requested, give my general impressions. I indeed conducted this article's PR, so as a non-fan, I appreciate the input and feedback here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: I'm not sure I like the 2nd sentence; it strikes me as self-referent, but I understand why it's there, so that readers understand that an attempt was made to make it accessible to both fans and non-fans. I'm not sure I like the phrase "common language", but I can't think of an alternative.

Background

  • In the eight starts between July 10 and August 14... I had to think about what this means, which is an indication (at least to me) that it's sports-speak. Perhaps you can clarify, like this: "In the eight games between July 10 and August 14, in which he started as the pitcher..." or something to that effect.

The streak

  • ...and for contending for the NL Cy Young Award, given to the best NL pitcher in the local press. The purpose of the award is unclear to me. By "local press" do you mean only newspapers and media outlets from the team's home town? I suggest that you add a little bit of explanation here, like who votes for it. IOW, I don't understand the distinction between local and national media. I mean, The L.A. Times is a local paper, but it's read nationally, right?

Reaction and outcome

  • ...he was forced to grind two years in both Double A and Triple A baseball. I can't be sure what "grind" means here; I suggest that you re-word, please.
  • (lower numbers were generally assigned to better prospects in those days) Again, I have a pretty good idea what this means, but there's no way for me to verify my assumptions. Please explain.
    • There was a time in baseball (19th century) when uniforms were often assigned by position 1-pitcher, 2-catcher, 3-1B, 4-2B, 5-3B, 6-SS, 7-RF, 8-CF, 9-LF, with the substitutes being given 10, 11, etc. It was prestigious to have a single digit jersey number because it meant that you were expected to be a starter. I don't know much about how the traditions gradually changed but over time some higher numbers became acceptable. Still during spring training all the lower numbers are generally assigned to the players most likely to make the team. Baseball has a 25 man roster but probably invites 50+ players for tryouts. Guys who end up with higher numbers are long shots to make the team. I don't have sources for all this stuff, but I don't know what you need to see in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeking arbitration in January... Why did he need arbitration? If I've asked this before, or if that's self-evident, please ignore this question. Come to think of it, if you've resolved any of my comments in our previous PR, very little of which is in my working memory at this point, please ignore what I state here.

I have mixed feelings, but I think I can SUPPORT this article for FA. Tony and I got into it a little during the PR (I do remember this part) regarding the accessibility of this article to non-fans. He said that he didn't understand why sports articles had to be accessible, since many science articles aren't. I disagreed at the time, and challenged him to make it as accessible as possible. Considering it now, I think that Tony has a point. First off, non-fans like me don't tend to read articles like this anyway, and when I do, I look for enough general information to follow the gist of what happened, and I think that this article does that fine. Secondly, while it's true that I don't understand much of the sports-language here, it's also true that the FA Bacteria contains much I as a non-scientist don't understand, but there's much of it I can understand. In the literature articles that I work on and have submitted to FAC, reviewers tell me I need to be more clear about aspects that I as someone who's familiar with the topic find obvious. IOW, I'm not sure how much further this article can go in being more "accessible". I think it's clear as possible, considering the topic, and that it tells a compelling story. I'm also fine with the tables, especially with the collapsible ones; they break up the prose and serve the same purpose, I think, as images. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh; weak support, I guess - While I still feel the article is a tad jargony, I agree with Christine's comment above, and would also assert that this article is about an inherently jargony topic - baseball ... I am not sure there is a sport whose jargon is so intrinsic, so some jargon is to be expected. However, I think the portion that remains is reasonable considering the size and topic of the article. Also, I am not sure about the play-by-play tables, particularly about the innings they reference, but one person has already opposed based on that, and it is not a hill on which I am willing to die, so I will let it go. Obviously, much hard work has gone into this article, and though I don't think it is perfect, I cannot in good conscience say that my remaining objections are related specifically to the FA criteria, and as such, I will weakly support. Go Phightins! 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

I've deliberately waited to see what others have said because, as a Brit, I know nothing about this game. I appreciate the work that has gone into the article, and Tony's probably done as much as could reasonably be done to make an inherently jargon-rich subject more accessible. Some initial comments:

  • which are described below both in common language and official baseball play-by-play scoring language—do you need to say this? It doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopaedic.
  • It was in response to a concern above. If we are going to have both in the article as the main subject, it introduces them to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • former Dodger pitcher Don Drysdale in 1968; as a Dodgers radio announcer...—Why aren't these both Dodgers'  ? Not even consistent within the same sentence either
  • umpire ruling—umpire's?
  • 9-game—nine-game
  • the Dodger rotation on July 14.—Dodgers'
  • Dodger coach Manny Mota —Dodgers'
  • Dodger manager Tommy Lasorda —Dodgers'
  • greatest streaks in sports history and among baseball's greatest record '—avoid repeat of "greatest" in same sentence
  • The win marked the Dodger's fifth—Dodgers' I would have thought. Please check for other permutations of Dodger(')(s)(')
  • There seems to be an issue regarding using Dodger as an adjective and Dodgers' as a possessive adjective. I don't have a good feel for the proper changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another read through if I get time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange, I can't find Manny Mota either, but I surely didn't make it up. With my own UK team, it's common to see Spurs coach Tim Sherwood instead of Spurs' coach, but it needs to be consistent, and the latter is, I think, more accurate. I'm taking the content on trust, but I can't see any other prose issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt edit

Working on it but I don't have a lot of time right now so it will be spread out over several days. Here's a start:
Lede
  • "spanned from" Is this a proper expression?
  • " for the 1988 season" cut, redundant
  • "rather than include" including?
Background
  • Is the period between 1963 and 2013 particularly relevant? I've seen baseball statistics since 1901 and since 1920.
  • Can it be done since 1901, perhaps? I'm leery of those statistics they put on the screen on ESPN that are "since 19XX" without an explanation of the relevance of the year.
  • You can see what the source says. There are other facts that are similar in nature that may be accessible, but this one is presented as sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the year 1968 to after June 4, cutting the one after June 8
The Streak
  • I seem to recall something in the MOS about not beginning a section title with "The", but I can't put my finger on it. I'll let you know if I find it.
  • It might be helpful if you mentioned what the 13 runs broke down to on a per nine innings basis.
  • Is there any way to resolve the conflict between the Tribune and USA Today"?
  • The difference could be error or it could be because one is counting the entire games for the beginning and ending game. We could of course omit the whole conflict. However, even with the conflict, we have a ballpark number.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly the final two paragraphs of the first paragraph should be moved to the previous section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, it looks OK.
The Streak, resumed
  • "Several North American newspapers ran parts of an Associated Press story " how is where the AP story ran relevant?
  • I would separate the postseason appearance against the Mets from the table at least with some lines to remark it was a postseason appearance. If this is technically feasible
  • "The game marked Hershiser's tenth and third consecutive complete game that season" Huh?
  • " NL-leading" NL East-leading, or are you saying they had the best record in the league (which they did, of course)
  • "the four complete games" this almost repeated the opening phrase. Perhaps switch to "those games"
  • "he struck out Eric Davis " the reader could be forgiven if he thinks "he" is Danny Jackson. You might want to mention which team Jackson pitched for.
  • "With the September 14 win, the Dodgers retained a 6.5-game lead." perhaps "With Hershiser's victory on September 14, the Dodgers maintained their lead at 6.5 games, as the Astros also won."
Will finish in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The win marked Hershiser's seventh consecutive win " I'm sure you can get rid of the double usage.
  • " final career start for the Astros." I would strike "career" as it might be taken to say that Ryan retired after 1988, which he did not. It might even be useful to mention something like "before departing for the Texas Rangers"
  • The word shutout is used a lot late in the September 19 section.
  • "according to articles written by ESPN and the Los Angeles Times," unless there is doubt that this happened, I would delete.
  • Reading the account of what you, in The Streak described as "favorable umpire interference ruling", I don't see that the umpire interfered, Butler did.
  • I think you should make it clear at the start of the September 28 section that the Dodgers had clinched the NL West, rather than waiting for the second paragraph, as it (to baseball fans anyway) is important to the consideration of the other facts, such as there was no actual need to pitch Hershiser as nothing was at stake but the streak and the Cy.
  • "no Padre had even reached second base safely." I am not sure what "even" and "safely" add.
  • "Hershiser's record was overlooked " I recollect coverage of it, in DC. Perhaps something a little softer might be justified.
  • On the Mets game, you might want to remind people this was Game One.
  • "sinker" is double-linked. As is hit and run
  • "pitching coach Perranoski made a double switch before getting to the mound to talk to Hershiser." the non-baseball fan may be unclear that this removed Hershiser from the game.
  • "in calendar days" I'm not quite sure what this means.
  • You may want to clarify which of the runs scored by the Mets were Hershiser's responsibility and which were not. It's all rather muddled in with the talk of scoreless inning streaks, which in the case of this relief pitcher, I would note would be unaffected (I assume?) by allowing batters who are another pitcher's responsibility to score.
  • I really only think the first run, which breaks the unofficial scoreless innings streak, matters so which of the other runs are Hershiser's is extraneous detail, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1988 NL Championship Series" some of this content, and certainly the link, should be moved to the game against the Mets. Possibly begin with Cone's comment and then tell about how Hershiser got the MVP awards.
  • "309 2⁄3 innings pitched including both the regular season and postseason has not been surpassed since 1988." perhaps after "postseason" add ", although not a record,"
  • "against the Braves (a post-1920 record)" for beating the Braves in particular or any single team?
  • It should likely be mentioned that Hershiser's 1995 and 1997 efforts were for Cleveland.
That's it. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review Just one image and it was confirmed in 2009 to be compliant with Creative Commons, from Flikr. Good thing, as I gather from a glance at the source page that it's changed since.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 24 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/Orel_Hershiser%27s_scoreless_innings_streak/archive1&oldid=1087754361"