Wikipedia:Peer review/Australia national baseball team/archive1

Australia national baseball team

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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put a fair bit of effort into it over the last few weeks/months/sometimes-feels-like-years. I'd like to see where its up to, get some feedback on what's there at the moment, and suggestions for things to add, change, or remove. I don't think its GA material yet (or I could just be being too hard on myself), but maybe its B-class.

Thanks, Afaber012 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and a good start. The article is certainly broad and stable, seems accurate and verifiable, and is neutral. I have concerns about prose and Manual of Style issues, which I address below.

Title

Shouldn't the article title be "Australian national baseball team" rather than "Australia national baseball team"? You use the former in the first line, and that looks right to me. Looking for parallels, I find Swedish national football team and Italian national baseball team.

Those two links are actually redirects, from 'Swedish...' to 'Sweden...' and 'Italian...' to 'Italy...'. 'Australian national baseball team' exists as a redirect to this article. Though I can't find it now, there has been discussions about this and the standard is to use the country's name, then 'national *insert sport here* team'. It's something I questioned when I first came across it as well. Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

It would be good to give the standard abbreviations as well as the full names of entities on first use in the lead if you abbreviate them later in the article. Perhaps the IBAF and the WBC are the only two. Thus "...both of the other major international baseball tournaments recognised by the International Baseball Federation... " would become "both of the other major international baseball tournaments recognised by the International Baseball Federation (IBAF)... " - Done Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The team has participated in the Summer Olympic Games in 1996, 2000 and 2004, but failed to qualify for 2008 - though currently attempting to be re-admitted for 2016, baseball is no longer contested as a medal event at the Olympics." - Delete "has"? Split sentence to eliminate hyphen as a connector? Suggestion: "The team participated in the Summer Olympic Games in 1996, 2000 and 2004 but failed to qualify for 2008. Though the team has applied for re-admission for 2016, baseball is no longer contested as a medal event at the Olympics." - Done Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current roster

"Current" is a risky choice because over time it is essentially meaningless. It might be better to say "2009 roster".

I think I get what you're saying on this one - by being listed as 'current' its only significant now. By the same token, in this case listing it as the '2009 roster' wouldn't be accurate because there'll likely be changes come the World Cup in September. Most of the team articles I've seen for various baseball teams and for the national teams have some listing of current players. I've updated the references to make it a little more clear that it occured at the beginning of 2009, and the roster itself shows the timing of the announcment of the roster. Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"(Players listed under "Provisional roster" below were in the 45-man roster, but were not selected in the 28-man squad.)" - "selected for" rather than "selected in"?~~ - Done Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World ranking

"The system takes into account results not only of the senior men's teams but also of junior teams, with weightings used to emphasise the importance of certain tournaments, based on the number of teams competing, the number of continents represented (or eligible to be represented), and in the case of continental tournaments such as the Oceania Baseball Championship the relative strength of teams eligible." - Perhaps too complex. Suggestion: "The system takes into account results not only of the senior men's teams but also of junior teams. Weightings that emphasise the importance of certain tournaments are based on the number of teams competing, the number of continents represented or eligible to be represented, and in the case of continental tournaments such as the Oceania Baseball Championship, the relative strength of teams eligible." - Done Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 World Cup results

This sentence has several small errors: "Australia's game against Thailand set a World Cup record scoring 26 runs in a mercy rule shortened 7 inning game, which featured two position players pitch the final 4 innings: third baseman Gavin Fingleson threw 3 innings to record the win, while first baseman Brett Roneberg threw the final inning." The sentence is too complex. It's artificially hooked together in the middle by a suspicious colon. The phrase "mercy rule shortened 7 inning game" is in itself too complex, and technically that long string of adjectives should be hyphenated. Suggestion: "Australia's game against Thailand set a World Cup record for scoring. The teams scored 26 runs in a 7-inning game shortened by the mercy rule. Two position players pitched the final four innings; third baseman Gavin Fingleson threw three innings to record the win, while first baseman Brett Roneberg threw the final inning." Or something like that. - Done Afaber012 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Despite the game being ~~shorted~~ shortened to seven innings by the mercy rule, Australia broke the World Cup record for runs scored when they beat Thailand 26-1. The game was also significant in that two position players combined to pitch the final four innings..." I want to highlight here that the record was for the runs scored by Australia, as opposed to the total number of runs scored by the two teams combined, and the unusual circumstances in having not just one but two non-pitchers pitch in a game, particularly at the international level. Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better and more clear. Should it be "shortened" rather than "shorted"? Finetooth (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for picking that one up! Afaber012 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

MOS:UNLINKDATES says in part, "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)." Thus, all of the linked dates in the "References" section should be unlinked. - Done Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would also help reduce the sea of blue in the reference section if you wikilinked terms like IBAF just once, on first use. You might also spell out IBAF and abbreviate it on first use in the references, thus: International Baseball Federation (IBAF) to remind readers what the IBAF stands for. - Done Afaber012 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen anything one way or the other that specificly refers to references, but my feeling is that each of the references should be treated the same way as each row in a table: if something's linked in one row it should be linked in all of them, because each row should be able to stand on its own. I think that if each reference has its parts linked, it means when text is moved around, added or removed, only the references in those parts need to be looked at. Particularly seeing as some of the references are used in multiple places, so it may become difficult to find where the reference is detailed. Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the way tables are often exceptions to the usual rules, but I don't think this extends to the references. I'm relying on WP:OVERLINK#Link density for my opinion. It doesn't mention references specifically; on the other hand, it specifically mentions the exception for tables. I can't think of a good reason to link Major League Baseball and some of the others in the reference section more than once if at all. They are already linked in the main text at least once. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at a few other baseball articles that are GAs or FAs, and from what I can see they virtually use no wikilinks at all in the references. The exception seems to be when something there has not been linked in the rest of the article. So I've done the same thing: removed the wikilinks from the International Baseball Federation, Major League Baseball, Australian Baseball Federation & International Olympic Committee. There are a couple of wikilinks left, but their either not used in the article, are not baseball-specific, or both. Afaber012 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The disambiguation (dab) tool found one dab problem, Joshua Hill, which links to a dab page. The tool lives here and can be used to look for dabs in any article.~~ - Done needs to be a red link at this stage Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've made several of the changes you've suggested. With the ones I haven't, I've added comments of my own to those ones specifically, so we can keep any discussions that start up between us - and anyone else who reviews it - together, and give ourselves some chance of being able to follow them. Afaber012 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from those two concerns about the name of the article and the current roster section - which I've given an explanation for, and I assume that if you're not ok with the explanations you at least don't have anything to argue against them - I've fixed everything you've suggested. I'd be curious to know what sort of rating you'd give the article now. It's currently at "C": should it stay as a "C", perhaps a high "C"; promote it to "B"; or (and I realize its probably unlikely at this stage) do you think it might be worthwhile nominating it as a "Good Article" candidate? Afaber012 (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never rated anything but "stub" or "start". I've done three GA reviews, and I've participated in a fair number of FA reviews, always as only one of several reviewers. About C and its variations and B, I know nothing. That said, the article is certainly improved from when I first read it, though I can still see a few other things I have quibbles with. I'll take another look tomorrow and post something more specific to this page. Finetooth (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: I re-read the whole article today, and it is much improved. I took liberties as I went and made some further proofing and copyediting changes. I gave reasons for each, but please revert or alter or buzz me about any that you disagree with. It was easier to make a few changes directly than to write a whole sentence about each one. In addition, I have three other suggestions, as follows.

MOS:HEAD says in part, "Section names should preferably be unique within a page; this applies even for the names of subsections." For this reason, I'd suggest shortening the subheads 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 to "2006" and "2009" and subheads 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3 to just the year. This would eliminate most of the repetition of the same words in various heads, and I think the meaning would still be clear. - Done I've done it for the WBC sections, and so there's not a double-up of "2009" between there and the World Cup section, I've seperated out the World Cup section into a seperate article - "Australia at the Baseball World Cup" - like I had for the Olympic section. I've left behind a slightly expanded lead paragraph, and will add an equivalent infobox and results table to the section when I've compiled them. Afaber012 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the "2006 WBC" section, this sentence is a bit too complex: "With each of the other three teams able to field a large number of Major League players - Dominican Republic and Venezuela both have strong baseball traditions, while Italy is among the top nations in Europe, as well as having access to Italian-American players - Australia was considered the underdog in the pool." Suggestion: "The other three teams, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Italy, were able to field a large number of Major League players. The Dominican Republic and Venezuela both have strong baseball traditions, while Italy is among the top nations in Europe and has access to Italian-American players. Thus, Australia was considered the underdog in the pool." - Done Afaber012 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In "IBAF World Cup", this sentence has a modifying clause separated from the thing modified: "Originally called the Amateur World Series when it was first held in 1938, Australia has participated in eight of the tournaments now referred to as the International Baseball Federation World Cup." The problem here is that Australia wasn't originally called the Amateur World Series. Suggestion: Australia has participated in eight of the tournaments originally called the Amateur World Series when it was first held in 1938 but later referred to as the International Baseball Federation." - Done Given that it hasn't been called the Amateur World Series when Australia's participated, and that the name and AUS's participation are independant of each other, I dropped the remark about the AWS completely and changed that to "Australia has participated in eight of the International Baseball Federation World Cup tournaments." Afaber012 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you've dealt with these three and looked the whole thing over again, I think you could reasonably nominate for GA. Please post a note here if any of my changes or suggestions don't make sense. Finetooth (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you've done with this. I checked the other changes you made directly to the article (both times) and didn't have any concerns with any of them. Thanks, Afaber012 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]