Wikipedia:Peer review/Mets–Phillies rivalry/archive2

Mets–Phillies rivalry[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article requires serious revision since much of the info is original research. Also, there are many assumptions being made that aren't substantiated by sources. For example, the first section is Bunning's perfect game against the Mets in 1964. Since the article is on the supposed rivalry between Philadelphia and New York, this section should only be important if it contributes to the rivalry. However, none of the sources suggest it had any impact in creating a rivalry (in fact it seems Mets fans were delighted by it) so it seems to me that editors are assuming it was important, thus equating original research. I think a lot of the info is original research and would appreciate the review.

Thanks, Ultimahero (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is at PR and GAR at the same time. 11:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that a problem? If so, why?Ultimahero (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not forbidden, but it can be a problem if both reviews take place concurrently and you get contradictory advice. It makes more sense to have PR, which is non-judgmental, before GAN which has a pass/fail outcome. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a baseball fan, I can say this so-called rivalry has only cropped up in the past five years, when the two teams were vying for first place, and may have a slight geographic angle due to the proximity of the two cities. Otherwise, there is no true rivalry, and the lead paragraphs even state the two teams were never in contention together up until a few years ago. I think the Mets/Braves rivalry is more notable. Overall, a bit of a silly article, IMO.--Chimino (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel the same way. I don't really think that there's much of a rivalry to speak of. That's why I dislike that the article alleges this long history between the two, even though the sources never verify that and in some cases outright contradict it. I think the article needs to be drastically overhauled, and possibly even deleted as the true rivalry is too recent a development to be deserving of a page.Ultimahero (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree all the extra "history" smacks of OR...an administrator may have to weigh in on the subject at some point.

I've had the notifications up for a while but hardly anyone has commented, let alone admins.Ultimahero (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is a place for pointing out problems with articles that can be corrected, but is not usually the place where such problems are corrected. I agree that the article looks like it has some original research. Here are some more suggestions for improvement.

There is a toolbox on this page that includes an extermal link checker - this shows two dead links and some others that may be problematic. These should be fixed - note that links to newspapers or magazines or reliable print sources do not have to be removed if the link goes dead (as the physical copy could still be accessed in an archive or library, in theory).
Are there articles on the history of two teams playing each other? It seems to me that this could be such an article with some work, whether or not a true rivalry exists between the teams (or has only existed in recent years).
I do think that the first sentence really follows WP:LEAD which says in part The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject.
I checked a couple of references to see if they backed up what the article said. In both cases they did not do so exactly. The first sentence is The rivalry between the New York Mets and the Philadelphia Phillies of Major League Baseball is said to be among the "hottest" rivalries in the National League (NL).[3] However when I checked the ref, it was a 2008 newspaper story from a New York newspaper that said they "are now the hottest rivals in their division, and maybe in all of the National League."[1] In general extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources to back them up - I would feel much better if this were from a story in a Chicago or Los Angeles or national publication, and not in one NY paper. I also worry that the time sense is completely lacking from the sentence in the article. The writer clearly says that the Mets and Braves used to be great rivals, and as of 2008 the Mets and Phillies are.
The article should avoid vague time terms in general. The second sentence uses recently, but wortds like this are too vague and can become out of date - better to use actual years.
The other ref I checked was for this sentence "The Phold"[13] of 1964 is among the most notable collapses in sports history.[14] Ref 13 does call it the Phold, so that is fine. However, ref 14 says this After leading the league much of the season and owning a six and one-half game lead with 12 games to play, a seemingly certain pennant was snatched away as the Phillies lost 10 straight in late September. The collapse devastated the entire city.[2] Nothing about it being "among the most notable collapses in sports history".
By the way, refs usually go to the end of a sentence, or at least after punctuation.
So it seems clear that the article has some OR and NPOV issues, but I also think it is not comprehensive (which is a FAC criterion). For example there is no clear statement in the article that the Mets were founded in 1962, so that is why the "rivalry" only dates back that far (the first game between the teams is listed in the infobox, and there is a bit in a note in one reference).
The article also does not explicitly mention the introduction divsions in 1969
There are unreferenced places in the article for example a whole paragraph in the 2009–2010 section has no refs and needs one.
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
There are also WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT issues - the closer in time the article gets to the present, the more text there is on those seasons.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS This article is not even mentioned at Major League Baseball rivalries that i could see - certainly not as its own section Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]