Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 American League West tie-breaker game/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1995 American League West tie-breaker game[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just received GA status, and I would like feedback on how to improve the article to become an FA.

Thanks, KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Move the "Background" section to the top so that it is in crological order.
  • When refering to each of the teams after the first time always refer to them the say way. Use just "Seattle" or just "the Mariners".
  • With References, article titles should not be in all caps, even if they are in the article.
  • What makes Baseball-Reference.com a reliable source?
  • Other than the result, there is nothing in the lead about the game that is the subject of the article.
  • abbreviations need to be explained
  • "Jeff Smulyan, who had threatened to relocate the team as a consequence of its losing ways." needs ref
  • "The new stadium, now called Safeco Field, opened in July 1999." needs ref
  • "frustration and disappointment." this is POV
  • I think "Game" is a better title for the "Line score and summary" section.
  • "On the other hand" Peacock term
  • Could the game summary be exspanded?

That's all for now. BUC (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KV5
  • I was just coming to comment on this article; this peer review has been on my "list of things to get to soon...". But I notice a couple things in the above review. Referring to the team in only one way isn't necessary as far as I know. GA 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season doesn't adhere to that format either. Also, Baseball-Reference.com has been determined as a reliable source in many, many featured articles and featured lists, so that can likely be passed over. My two cents... KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)