Wikipedia:Peer review/Cleveland Indians/archive3

Cleveland Indians[edit]

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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to further improve the article.

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most sports teams have separate articles for their history, so that the history section in the main article can be condensed. See Manchester United F.C. for a good example of how this is done. BUC (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above. Given the 108 year history of the club, a separate History of the Cleveland Indians article would be a nice companion, allowing you to focus the most important parts of team history in the main article. Among the things I notice quickly, some of which is really minor stuff that FA reviewers might look at should you take the article that far:

Explain abbreviations the first time you use them. i.e., the first time you spell out National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, National League, Union Association, etc., add the abbreviations (N.A.), (N.L.) and (U.A.) in parentheses following that first mention.
In the lead, you state the Indians were founded in 1901, but actually in 1900 as a minor league team. It might help to reword that a bit to seem less confusing.
I see several run-on sentences and sentences that are disjointed via an overuse of commas. i.e.: "Mack, partly to thank Somers for his past financial support, agreed to trade Lajoie to the then-moribund Blues, who offered $25,000 salary over three years." Could be reworded along the lines of "Lajoie was traded to the Blues by Mack as a partial thank you to Somers for his previous financial support. Somers offered Lajoie a $25,000 salary over three years."
There are numerous stub paragraphs.
Some statements are confusing. i.e.: "By the end of the 1993 season, the team was in transition, leaving Cleveland Stadium and fielding a talented nucleus of young players. Many of those players came from the Indians' new AAA farm team, the Charlotte Knights, who won the International League title that year." There seems to be a false connection there, as the location of the minor league team is incidental to the Indians' development of prospects. I might reword that to something along the lines of "The team ended 1993 in transition, leaving Cleveland Stadium for Jacobs Field and fielding a talented nucleus of young players. Many of those players were members of the 1993 International League champion Charlotte Knights, Cleveland's AAA affiliate."
I don't see a huge need for five subsections for 2001-present. It leaves the article quite disjointed.
This would have to be a project wide decision, but at WP:HOCKEY, we list the last five seasons under Season-by-season results rather than leave an empty section with nothing but a see-also link.
If there are any photos of players available, it could serve as a good example image in the team uniforms section.
Celebrity fans strikes me as trivia. Is this necessary?
Can the nickname and logo controversy section be expanded?
Also something that would have to be discussed and standardized by the baseball project, we at the hockey project like to condense succession boxes and templates into a collapsed box to reduce clutter, leaving only the main team template outside. (see Calgary Flames#Further reading for an example).

Hope this helps, Reso lute 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]