Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the New York Yankees/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 via FACBot (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2016 [1].

History of the New York Yankees edit

Nominator(s): Giants2008 (Talk) 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, my fellow reviewers. For the second time in my Wikipedia career, I'm bringing an article to FAC. This page is about the history of one of the most successful teams in North American sports. It has taken almost three years of editing to bring the article to this point. The version from before I started renovations deserves a place in a museum; not only was it largely unsourced, but it somehow managed to be outdated and full of recentism at the same time. That's not a combination you come across too often, even on the lower end of Wikipedia articles. As a diehard Yankees fan, I knew a lot about the team's past in advance, but I'm surprised at how much I learned while doing research.

The article reached GA status in early 2015, following a review by Wizardman, who I'm relieved to see has returned to editing after a brief absence. To help prepare it for FAC, I brought it to peer review and sought out input from the great Wehwalt. Among the topics discussed was the length, as this is admittedly a long article (although not as long as his latest political epic). He wasn't enthusiastic about the idea of splitting the page, and in truth neither am I. If possible, I'm inclined to follow his advice. I believe that the article has been brought up to FA standards, and will be around to address your comments. Please enjoy the article, and hopefully the home run the Red Sox hit against the Yankees while I was typing this won't prove to be a bad omen. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)1[reply]

  • Image review:
  • Others OK. Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your concern looks valid, and I removed the image. Thank you for the review. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I haven't reviewed any other aspects of the article, but I'm pleased to strike the opposition. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point: I might just pop back and review this properly as it looks rather good, to no-one's great surprise! The lead reads very well. But for consistency, should all the names in captions be linked? Some are, and some aren't. Unless there is a reason for this that I've missed, I think it should be all or none. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: It's been ages seen I'd seen you at an FAC before today! It's great to see you contributing here once again. I decided to remove almost all of the links from the captions; it's just a personal preference of mine, I guess. There is a photo of George W. Bush throwing out a ceremonial pitch with his name linked in the caption; his name doesn't come up in the article itself, so I left that link alone for now. If you'd prefer them all to be linked, I'd certainly be willing to bend on the issue. It would be fantastic if you could give this a review at some point. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem either way, not a big deal for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Read to end of 1903-12 section. Looking very good so far, just a few minor nitpicks. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "moved to position the circuit as a new major league that would compete with the established National League": I'm assuming that the circuit refers to the Western League, but this is a little vague on first reading.
    • I changed the order of the sentence to make things clearer. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the first paragraph of the Background section a little confusing. "In addition to placing three teams in cities with NL clubs, the AL had another three in former NL team locations, including Baltimore" feels important, but doesn't make it clear to me why that is. Also, "the Orioles were one of four clubs shut down by the NL after the 1899 season" confuses me. I had thought that the Orioles were formed in 1901, and it was only when I followed the link that I understood.
    • There was a little unneeded detail and it didn't quite get to the point before, upon a second look. See if the new version looks better. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York posted a fourth-place finish": This may just be me, but I never like "posted". I prefer "finished fourth", but that may just be me!
  • "due to ineffective pitching": Just a hint of editorial voice here? But I'm loathe to go with "according to XXX" here. If there is an easy way to reword this, it might be changed, but if not I think it is fine.
    • I gave more explicit reasons for the pitching's struggles. There was a quote I could have added, but I thought it best to spare us all from "Griffith's cripples". That's not very nice, even by early-1900s standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a 70–78 record that was 21 games worse": Presumably they won 21 fewer games?
    • Actually, it was 22, but the teams played an uneven number of games, so the record books show it as a 21-game margin. I just listed the wins, for simplicity's sake. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After their first couple of seasons in New York City, Highlanders ownership infrequently invested in new players": In this paragraph we call them Highlanders, but earlier we say that this was not their only nickname. Would it be safer to call them something else? Again, not a big deal, and feel free to ignore it.
    • Removed the nickname where I saw it. Their nickname becomes official in the next section, so it won't be as much of an issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York was searching for a site to build a new stadium on": Gives me a strange vision of all the people of the city searching... Maybe "The team owners" or similar? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source mentions one owner, so his name is now there. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I made a few minor changes, but please check them as usual. I've been known to mess up baseball articles before! Looking good, to end of 1913-20. Sorry it's a bit slow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With the Yankees finishing no higher than sixth place in 1913 and 1914": Given that it's only two seasons, why not give their actual places for the two seasons as this is a little teasing.
  • "and reportedly carried debts": Not a fan of reportedly; can we be more definitive about what their debts were?
    • The source doesn't give any more details, and there was nothing in the other major sources I checked. I removed "reportedly". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 1916 Yankees improved to 80 wins" sounds a bit jarring to me; not sure how you can improve to wins! But I suspect it's common usage, so feel free to ignore.
  • "The war-shortened 1918 campaign saw the Yankees contend": Never a big fan of this usage of saw, but again it might just be me.
  • "and wind up fourth in the AL at 60–63": And I really dislike "wind up"!
  • "for $25,000 cash and $75,000 in notes": What are notes in this sense?
    • They were promissory notes, and that is now linked. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Curse of the Bambino, this mainly comes up after 1986. Were there any more contemporary similar views?
    • The source is adamant that talk of a curse did not start until then, and for what it's worth our article on the curse agrees. The people in New England had their hearts broken in 1986, and that probably led talk of a curse to spread. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder are we a little light on Ruth. If attendances increased, can that be tied more to him? Something about people coming to watch him, how amazing he was, something like that?

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wehwalt added a little on him (naturally), and I plugged in a sentence that may help explain his appeal better. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch: No major problems, just a few nit-picks and questions over phrasing. Now to end of 1929-35; enjoying this one! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ruth himself resurged after receiving vocal criticism": Resurged seems a bit strange here! Maybe another word (though I can't think of much better than a dull "had a resurgence"
    • Your suggestion is the best I can come up with as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "losing season": Pretty obvious, but the completist in me wonders if we need a note or something to explain? Maybe not.
    • How about a wikilink to a glossary article explaining the concept? I often find it easier to do this than add a footnote, since most of the sources assume the readers know what the definition is from the start. One of the occupational hazards of writing about sports, as I'm sure you're aware. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New York suffered the death of manager Huggins": Not sure suffered is the right word here. Maybe just "The team's manager, Huggins, died ..." or similar.
  • "McCarthy's team was a transition from Murderers' Row": Again, I know what this means, but I think its a little laboured. Is there a non-sports-speak way to say it? Even if we just say something like "undergoing a transition", or "the personnel were in transition from that of the Murderer's Row..."
  • "beating out the Athletics for the pennant": Beating out is a new one for me, and doesn't sound too encyclopaedic.
  • "Ruth's batting production": Yuck!!
  • "in areas such as on-field hustle": Not sure what this means. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to a concept that should be easier to understand. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Down to 1948-56 now. I did some minor copy-editing; as usual, please check my working! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he benched himself": I never like this, but I may be in a minority, and I can't think of a concise way to say the same thing. For me, it's creeping into sports-speak, but not a big deal to be honest.
    • Took it out altogether, as the rest of the sentence gets the point across. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were one out from losing when Tommy Henrich struck out": Is there a way to avoid out...out?
  • "an MLB home attendance record by attracting 2,265,512 fans": Presumably over a season? Perhaps make that clear.
  • "the 1955 Yankees beat out the Indians": Sports-speak?
    • Yes. I am guilty of that from time to time. It's gone now. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the Yankees' management had sought to avoid integrating the club's roster": Perhaps worthy of a little more comment, even if just context or comparison to other teams.
    • Commented on it, as indicated below. I was going to work on all of this batch later, but since this was related to one of Wehwalt's comments I decided to expand on what I was writing there. I actually think giving most of a paragraph to this helps "break up the flow" as you wanted. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general comment about this chunk. The 1936 and 1948 sections are a little bit of a chore to read to a non-specialist. I think the two main reasons for this are that we have a lot of sentences beginning with "the" and an unavoidably repetitive structure of wins, etc. The second reason is that, unlike earlier, we are a little starved of comment. The team was obviously really, really dominant here, but there is no comment on this. For example, what did the critics say, either now and then? What did the fans think? Were they popular or unpopular? If there was a way to break up the flow of seasons and results, it might make it a little easier. This is not a major issue, but it is one worth considering, if anything can be done. We certainly manage it on the previous sections. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was about the point where I realized the article was headed for 15,000 words if I didn't tone things down a bit. :-) I've done my best to try and break up what must be monotony for you. For the 1936 section, I added some brief commentary on the 1939 team and that era. The 1948 section benefits from the integration addition earlier, and I inserted a short paragraph on falling attendance and television broadcasts, which is a departure from the results etc. In addition, I varied the beginnings of sentences some more. Have no fear if you choose to keep reading (and I hope you do!): after the next section, things become more interesting. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now down to the end of the 1973 to 1976 section. Did a couple of minor copy-edits, but nothing really jumping out at me. All looking good. I'll try to finish this tomorrow, sorry it's taking so long! (I'm out of practice!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Finally done, having read to the end. Nothing leaped out apart from these fairly minor points which don't affect my support. An excellent piece of work, and an interesting read. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "who later broke the career stolen base and runs scored records": I'm pretty sure I understand this but it lacks a little elegance. Is there a way to rephrase it a bit?
    • Changed it to "the future MLB career stolen base and runs scored record holder", which is hopefully better. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just dawned on me that we never introduce the Mets: they aren't actually linked either! And we last left it where the Giants and the Dodgers had just left, but nothing is followed up. Might be obvious to a baseball fan, but perhaps not to everyone, and we go into more detail about the other NY teams earlier in the article.
    • Excellent catch! I added a couple sentences on the Yankees' new competition in the 1965–72 section. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following their 2003 season, in which Jeter became their first captain of the Yankees since Mattingly..." I could be missing something obvious, but this made no sense to me!
  • I wonder if the second paragraph of the 2009-present section just becomes a touch too much like PROSELINE? And I like the final paragraphs which sum it all up, but they seem a little bit of an afterthought. I wonder if they should have their own section? But not sure that would work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed a couple of words around to make it less like proseline. As for the final paragraphs, I played around with giving them their own section in edit preview mode, but it just didn't feel right to me. The section looked stubby in comparison to the rest of the article. If it's okay, I'd like to leave them as is for now. If they receive further objections from reviewers, I'd be more inclined to take out the quote and incorporate the content from the summary paragraph elsewhere in the article. Thanks for all of the useful comments, which have improved the article tremendously, and for your support. I'm happy you decided to visit FAC again! Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm working my way through the article, mostly hands on. Excellent work, as I remember it being. My biggest quarrels so far are a tendency to use "New York" as a plural noun (especially pre-1914), and a lot of fairly unneeded phrases like "in the AL" following say, "third place", when it is obvious from context. I'd ask you to look through and see if those and similar phrases are truly needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do worry about the singular/plural issue, because I've seen numerous FACs tank over it. Many of the strongest European prose reviewers took a dim view of using "it" for the first names of teams, from what I remember at past sports FACs. Still, if that's what you want to see, I'll reduce the plural nature of the city name. If it's okay with Sarastro, I might just go with Highlanders, as I see that nickname more often than Americans in most sources. I'll do these items with Sarastro's next batch, as I do want to watch some of the game tonight if possible. Oh, and thank you for the prose cleanup you've been doing. I still lack much experience in FA-level writing; noticing issues in others' prose is much easier than scanning your own! Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No problem. The reasons why the Yankees avoided integrating the club might be helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went and did a sweep focusing on singular/plural issues and the removal of extraneous phrasing. My hope was to finish the integration comment and your others below, but it's almost midnight now and I really need to stop for the night. They will need to be tomorrow's job, along with anything else that may come up in the meantime. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any help, I've no problem at all with using "it" for a team; I consider it an ENGVAR issue. I'm OK with Highlanders too, though it may be confusing if not used sparingly. And I see that I've just repeated Wehwalt's comment about integration. Sorry! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a few sentences on the Yankees' attitudes toward black players. They should help the readers understand the prevailing sentiment of the time, in all of its ugliness. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Stout writes that they "were the first team to comprehend what free agency meant", in terms of increasing attention paid to the club and revenue"" Well, they were the first team to build a winner through free agency, which seems to me to be the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, and I added something along that line that the source was able to support. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did the resurgence of the Mets contribute to the Yankees' decline in the mid 1980s?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the field, not really. They did more damage to themselves than anything else. However, the Mets started outdrawing the Yankees every year, which I thought was worth a mention. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
During the account of 2001, I think there needs to be some mention of 9/11 and the resumption of baseball. It was seen as something of an important symbol.
Done. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a more pungent way of putting the comparison of team payrolls? If the source will support it, I'd put it in terms of ", as much as the Senators, Pilots, and Pilgrims combined"
It listed all the team's payrolls, so that was fairly easy to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your use of "numerous", it's a bit heavy.
I saw a couple of them in the bottom of the article and dealt with them. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a bit more about the new stadium, its location, perhaps mention that Monument Park was moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if you have any other comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to touch on the Rodriguez drug affair. Possibly in the listing of accomplishments (pennants and whatnot) at the end, you can include something from the lists of the most valuable franchises in sports. As I recall, the Yankees are up there.
Support In addition to my comments here, I've edited the article a fair amount during the FAC and weighed in some time back at the peer review. I continue to believe that the article is not too long. I suspect that our articles are mined for information rather than read straight through, and should not be laid on a Procrustean bed for adjustment. An excellent account of the team's history. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and your help in polishing the article. I added sentences to address your last two points. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Been reading this over - comments soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the American League (AL) was founded in 1901, the Baltimore Orioles were one of the original eight clubs; after two years, the organization was replaced by a New York City-based franchise, which became known as the Yankees in 1913. - this bit reads a bit weirdly as it is unclear why the Orioles are being mentioned (also the New York Yankees page sets 1901 as the establishment date). How about "The club was one of the original eight clubs of American League (AL) at its founding in 1901, though was then known as the Baltimore Orioles; after two years, the organization was moved to New York was transformed into (or replaced by) a New York City-based franchise, which became known as the Yankees in 1913." ?
From 1936 to 1939, the Yankees won the World Series every year - I'd flip this, sounds funny as is

I was reading this on my phone and there were some other minor things that I can't find now, so never mind....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did something a little different than that. The sources are split on whether the Yankees actually moved or were a new team; if anything, most of the recent sources say the old Orioles went under, leaving a spot in the AL that the future Yankees filled. It's hard for me to redo the lead that way when it would be going against the team's viewpoint (it doesn't count the Orioles years) and secondary sources. The 1901–02 section has good background info, but I can see why the Orioles mention in the lead would be confusing. I rewrote the sentence in a way that removed the Orioles while mentioning other content from the section per WP:LEAD. I was hoping to avoid stirring up a potential hornet's nest at the main Yankees article, but if you want me to try editing that page with a couple of the sources used here, I guess I'll give it a shot. Let me know if that's what you want me to do.
  • Your second comment should be done. Thanks for taking a look, and please do post the other things if you remember them. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. That reads fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Giants2008, has there been a source review I'm missing? If not, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Laser brain (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask for one, but it looks like Wehwalt has made that unnecessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistently cited except as follows:

  • You are inconsistent in whether significant words are capitalized in news article titles. A cluster beginning around ref 252 have caps, most others do not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalized all significant words. Thanks for taking a look at the referencing. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax Hi, Giants2008. The lead image looked small to me, and I noticed it was sized to 300 instead of to 300px, so I upsized it using our image rescaler parameter to upright=1.3 which is the maximum size recommended for an infobox, if there was one, which there is not. Using the upright parameter is the preferred way to upsize or downsize images. 1.3 factor will make it 286 pixels wide if a reader has their preferences set to the standard default of 220px. Always include a scaling factor when using the upright rescaler, or it will auto downsize images to 70% of the user's default image size.

I made several edits here, mostly for MoS and aesthetics. With lots of real estate and not an over abundance of images, I was able to jigger the images around to make the page flow better. I hope you like it.

This sentence looks odd to me and you might want to read up on MOS:NUMBERS (as it pertains to fractions):

the total gave them the league championship by a 4 1/2-game margin over Cleveland.

The numeral 4 should not stand alone and it should be a word, but if you convert it to a word, then you also need to convert the fractional portion to a word. Also, hanging the word game on the fraction with a hyphen is irregular, IMHO. Ping me back after the prose edit and I will be sure to !vote on this for you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was meant to be a mixed number, and apparently the MoS wants you to present mixed numbers in figure form. I base many of my own comments on MoS issues, and even I can't keep up with all of the manual's twists and turns. The fraction is now MoS-compliant, and I tweaked the sentence to remove the hyphen. See if that works for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:33, 22 May 2016 (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/History_of_the_New_York_Yankees/archive1&oldid=1079645626"