Talk:Baseball uniform/Archive 1

Details

What does the line "and its details" mean in the lead? It being what? 144.175.17.179 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It means the uniform's logos, colors, ect.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then clarify cuz it makes no sense. 144.175.18.115 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Some sections of the article appears to be a copyright infringement of http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ (cited as a reference), see 1, 2, and of ezinearticles.com (a blacklisted site), see 3. The copyrights of both sites are incompatible with a use on Wikipedia. There is also an entire section from Baseball cap, and we can't exclude other copyright infringements. Maybe this should go to WP:CP. Cenarium (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find some time later this afternoon to copyedit the article to remove copyright issues. Kingturtle (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Fix anything I did. Revert if it wasn't helpful. Kingturtle (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert it ? Oh no, it was certainly helpful and well done. I also tried to fix a sentence in the Graphics section that was copied from the baseball-almanac.com source. Cenarium (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the copy from baseball cap ? Is it enough to indicate it, is it compliant with the GFDL ? Cenarium (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked further, and there are other copyright violation of the almanac source and others (baseball.mu) disseminated in the article. Sorry but I am completely ignorant in this domain, so I prefer not try to fix it myself, that wouldn't be helpful I guess. For example, the Stockings section 4, the shoes section 5. Those are copyrighted sites, not mirrors. Cenarium (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to fix those issues myself, but any other help with be useful too. I'm sorry for the copyright problems here. I tried to reword it the best I can, but it seems it still a copyright problem. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you get ahold of Okkonen's Baseball Uniforms book. It will tell you everything you need to know about 20th century uniforms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The copyvio of baseball cap has been removed. There are a few others though... RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We cannot afford to keep copyright violations indefinitely, we already have enough of them. So I removed the copyvios, please refer to the diff. The article's progression has been affected, but enough time has been given to address the issue. Cenarium (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Availability?

Is there possibly an infobox we can add to the article? I can't seem to find the right one myself. If one is found, either show it here or add it to the article. Thank you. -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Checked WP:IBT, as far as I can tell none are appropriate. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you have an infobox for a standalone article? And what would it contain? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a clue. Should I work on one? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Do other styles of clothing have infoboxes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. Was wondering, do FAs and GAs have to have infoboxes?--RyRy5 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope and nope. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Then none is needed, especially if no one has a clue as to what info would be in it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Uniforms vs. nicknames

There could be some serious crossover in these two articles if we get into too much detail. But the articles, while related, are not the same topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Various discussion

I think the opening line doesn't need to say both "coached" and "managers". A manager is a subset of the term coach, although obviously in pro baseball he isn't really referred to as coach. To Bugs: do you think the parenthetical note "(but not always)" in the lead is needed? I think the term "often" implies that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The real point is that anyone participating in the game on the field is supposed to wear a uniform. That needs to be clearer somehow. Connie Mack didn't wear a uniform, he wore a business suit. But he didn't coach on the baselines or go to the pitcher's mound, he had coaches do that. He stayed in the dugout. McGraw coached on the baseline, so he had to wear a uniform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think "often" covers that. Furthermore, we have the luxury of not having to make a blanket statement about how a uniform is worn by coaches because it definitely varies level to level. Obviously Pro and college ball have some strict rules, but often asst coaches in highschool dont wear a uniform (even if coaching on the field), same goes for little league. Maybe this brings up a new section... we can lead the lead as "often coaches wear uniforms" etc, then have a section below on rules regarding coaches attire, etc. Im sure there are some sources to be found. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm too focused on the pros, as is the whole article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to say "sometimes by non-playing personnel such as managers and coaches" because managers and coaches are not the same thing, at least at the professional level, and you also have batboys, ballgirls, and so on, who might also (but not always) wear something that looks like the team uniform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good, and you are definitely right about also including bat boys, etc. The article currently being focused on the majors I wouldn't call a problem, just that we have a lot of good sourced info on that. Little League, college, international will probably all need to be addressed at some point. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And the attendant rules. Certainly in kids leagues, the coaches typically don't wear uniforms, but they participate on the field as needed. I also question some of the years. I don't know where that 1849 came from, for example. Maybe that's the beginning of the NABBP, but the fact is that uniforms of some kind have always been a part of organized baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was concerned about that too. The way it is now, it almost implies that there were games played in MLB where a team didn't have some form of a uniform. There was probably always something that would be considered one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article misleads when it implies that MLB began in 1849. "Organized baseball" would be a better term. That's just one of many issues with the article, which is slowly improving over time and with additional hands. And the article needs more illustrations to show examples of the evolution of the uniform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I know nothing about baseball, but I was asked to comment on this

• third para of lead is too short, and it's not clear how it relates to the article title
  •  Doing...
• What makes refs 3 & 4 reliable?
  •  Doing...
• I don't like the way the web links are formatted, without a title and with a surplus url. As an example ref 14 imho should be
  •  Done

Okay, we can fix that. Thanks for commenting. --RyRy5 (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, authors not given eg ref 16 jimfbleak (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• •  Doing...

New image to be added?

I am thinking that we should add the image to the right to the shoes section of the article. Comments? --RyRy5 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baseball uniform/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold. There is quite a bit of work to be done to make this article a Good article See comments below for specific issues. There are other, specifically prose related, that I may come back and add. This article has a good framework, but is very loose on citations, had a recent removal of content due to copyright infringement, and prose needs attention.

Prose

1. Little League Baseball was founded by Carl Stotz in 1939 when they started to use baseball uniforms in the little leagues." - should be moved out of the lead. Further, I am not sure the significance, and the citation does not even discussed uniforms. Did baseball uniforms somehow assist in LL's inception or growth?
2. "In 1882, uniforms and/or stockings involved different colors that reflected the different positions, sometimes." Why sometimes? The cite states that the rules of 1882 baseball were that players wore different colors.
3. In the "Home and road uniforms" section" Why are the Giants, Dodgers and A's uniforms discussed over others. The 1937 Brooklyn Dodgers used tan as their away uniforms." This has its own paragraph. Why is this notable (is this cited?) Same question of importance with the subsequent A's paragraph. Elaborate on why these were important to the progression of baseball uniforms. Something like . . ."the first team to wear"
4. Bill Veeck putting a team in shorts seems is relevant item I think should be included.
5. ("You can't tell the players without a scorecard!") -- is this a quote? If so it should be cited. If not, it should be elaborated on with prose.
6. "the ritual of "retiring" a number came into fashion" Isn't this more tradition, not fashion. Also, needs a cite.
7. Should Baseball stirrups be merged into this article? At least it needs to be wiki-linked. Further, it might be nice to mention and wiki-link to all most of the articles in Category:Baseball equipment.
8. "Players such as Manny Ramirez have taken this fashion trend to an extreme" -- POV pushing.
9. "very few major leaguers wear color-matching shoes and there are hardly any all-black shoes." - this reads like original research.

MOS

Specific

1. "They were first used in 1912 (Okkonen)." Use inline cite. Also refer to relevant page number in the book.

General - These are some suggestions generated by the semi-automatic javascript program:

1. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
2. Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
3. As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

Citations:

General:

Additional citations are needed. If multiple items are being cited to the same source, the refname function can be used. For example: Astros experiment, numbers on jersey,

The Cap styles section is 5 paragraphs, but only the first sentence is cited. Similiar

Specific:

1. Number(s)1, 14, 17 - Title of article should be linked
2. Number(s)11 needs author info
3. Number(s)3 - Links to "Stotz Scholarship Recipients Honored by Little League" not an article called "History of Little League Baseball." Also, if applicable please use publication date.
4. Number(s)16 - I did not see where this (commercial) site supports: "The Kansas City Athletics designed revolutionary white shoes in the 1960s"
5. Ensure that the HOF articles have the correct title. For example -
6. Number(s)4 & 5 do not meet WP:RS in my opinion.
7. Number(s)13 - CSM at high beam. Is there any way to link to the original. This links to a stub article.

External links:

1. does this HOF page need to be a citation & a an external link?
2. The espn article looks like a blog (read: not WP:RS), does it add anything to the article?

Stable:

• No edit wars, but this article was nominated for GA on May 24. Peer reviewed on May 25. And on June 9th a large deletion of content due to Copyright infringement was performed. Does not give me confidence that this was a well thought out progression. Also, due to the removal of content on June 9, the article submitted to GA and the one I am reviewing are different ones.

Broad/Focused?

• I agree with Wikipedia:Peer review/Baseball uniform/archive1, that a section devoted to the marketing and economics (commericial growth) of baseball uniforms should be added.

---

Any questions, I will be happy to help. Thanks.

Oh, now that I look at it again - the GA request was never completed on the talk page. Maybe editors did not realize that a review was requested. I will continue to leave this review anyway. Mitico (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wish I had seen these conversations before I began my review.(User talk:RyRy5/Archive 12#GAs&User talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan/Archive3#Re:GA) I should have been more observant. Nonetheless, as observed in these discussions, this page is not ready for GA yet. Mitico (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it isn't ready for review. I don't know how the nomination was added back, but I appreciate the review, it could really help. Sorry for that... -- RyRy (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)