Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Casey Stengel/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2017 [1].

Casey Stengel edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Casey Stengel, one of the great managers in baseball history, and one of its great characters. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a lot of good things going on in this article, but right now there are a few holes. The article's evaluation of Stengel as a manager is incredibly slight, with little effort given over to describing his managerial style or his impact on those great Yankee teams of the 1950s. I also don't see how an article on Stengel could only contain the word "platoon" or variations thereof a total of three times -- and not at all in the lead -- when his popularization of the practice is arguably his greatest baseball legacy. These issues can be rectified by including information from The Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, and Evaluating Baseball's Managers by Chris Jaffe, all of which try to place Stengel and his accomplishments into the larger context of baseball history. Without this material, I do not believe the article can pass the comprehensive or well-researched FAC criteria. Indrian (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. As it happens, I can get my hands on copies of all three without too much trouble. Please, Indrian, check back in few days on this or I will ping you. I'd certainly welcome any other comments you might have, either in the interim, or later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian:, I've done as you asked. Would you mind looking it over?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love all the additions. I will do a formal review soon.Indrian (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Casey_Stengel_1953.png: source link is dead. Same with File:Billy_Martin_1954.png
File:HOF_Stengel_Casey_plaque.jpg: when was the plaque created? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed on the plaque, still looking on others ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the dead links. There is still a verifiable reference without them. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

Your ref #1 seems irregular in multiple ways. It is missing publisher info and retrieval date, and it has first name first.
For the Jaffe and James refs, it says "Check isbn=value: invalid character". I guess that's related to your note that "Numbers for the James books and for Jaffe indicate Kindle locations."

Everything else for your sources seems to be in order. Moisejp (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed those things.-- (Wehwalt) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – After recovering from a sudden bout of severe depression last night, I'm happy that there's something in my wheelhouse to review here. This is what I saw in the early part of the article; I'll return as time allows.

~~Linking World War I in the lead is probably a bit of overlinking since that's such a common term.~~
~~Same goes for the basketball link in Early life.~~
Check the titles of several of the subsections. They appear to be using large em dashes instead of the smaller en dashes. Minor point, but the bigger dashes don't look great when reading the individual sections.
~~Return to the minors: "and was very reluctant in his content when reached by cable." Was "content" meant to be "consent" or am I reading this wrong?~~
~~Repeating success: "Mantle's talent and speed awed Stengel. Stengel...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.~~
~~"Much of the burden of winning a third consecutive pennant fell on Berra, who put together a MVP season." This should be "an MVP season" instead.~~
~~Another unwanted em dash in 4—1 lead, which should also be the smaller en dash. Same goes for 1936—1939 later in the section.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I've gotten everything there. I share your pain, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my pain has eased, I've come back to the article and looked at the rest of it. Only a few referencing quibbles to point out. First, reference 6 (Toledo Blade) has an author which can be added to the cite. Also, my from experience, these Google News links can go dead from time to time (due to licensing issues and the like) and I find it helpful to add page numbers to them as a precaution, although this is purely optional.
~~It appears that reference 168 comes from Fox Sports, not Fox News.~~
~~Since ref 74 is a book, it may be helpful to put the full cite in the bibliography, where the other books are, and just leave a short cite in-text as is done elsewhere.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done those too, though in the case of ref 74, found an alternative source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – All of my concerns have been resolved, and the article looks to meet FA standards. Nice work on a topic familiar to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad you're feeling better :).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Should "managing vacancy" be "Management vacancy". Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's how it is in baseball talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Its a Support from me anyhow. The article is rather comprehensive, well sourced as noted above, crisply and tightly written throughout, and in a pacey, engaging style. Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I do not know a lot about basketball but it was a good read. Some minor quibbles for your consideration:

Does the "I learned more from McGraw than anybody." quote really need to be in quote box? Can't it be part of the prose?
(Bibliography:) why can't New York, New York be simply New York?
I believe you should only link authors on their earliest instance. Also, why are the publishers in the section not linked? It might be useful linking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. The technical things are fixed. Regarding the quote box, I am using quote boxes as a way of showing the reader Stengelese, without which I doubt the baseball people would consider the article comprehensive. In a way, it's Casey's running commentary on his own life. If I put it in the text, it would sort of duplicate the Appel quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: I think this is just about ready for promotion, but I'd just like to check if Indrian plans to return. In the meantime, a few queries from me. Not all the images have alt text, which isn't a FA requirement, but is always good to include as best practice. I also noticed using this tool that we have a few duplinks. Some of them are probably justified as they are some way apart, but I'd appreciate someone taking a little look. And a minor point, why are we spelling out "twenty-nine days after the World Series ended" rather than having "29 days". Sarastro1 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it immediately follows a date, thus it would be "On November 13, 1923, 29 days ..." I seem to recall one of my English teachers saying don't do that. I'm pretty sure most of the duplinks are intentional--Bill Veeck for example--but I'll look them over and add the alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either of these is fine either way, just checking. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way to add alt text for the retired numbers, but I've added the remainder and delinked a couple of multiple links. The rest seem worth having. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I don't think there is any need to wait any longer. Indrian did not express any concerns, and if there are any other issues, they can be raised on the article talk page after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.