Wikipedia:Peer review/New York Yankees/archive1

New York Yankees[edit]

This page has undergone a lot of work over the past few weeks. I've nominated it twice for FA-consideration but both times it's been shot down. I shortened the article a little bit to around 65 KB and tried to accomodate some of the suggestions from the FA-review but I guess it still needs some work, and I should come here first before I go for attempt #3. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks. Sportskido8 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from a lifelong Yankee fan--

"operate" twice in lead sentence.
"Since the 1969 expansion" I think you mean the 1969 division realignment.
"who vacate Section 39 in right field" Is "vacate" the word you want here? It seems like the opposite is true.
"Yankees have helped exemplify the phrase "dynasty" "Dynasty" is not a phrase, and "helped exemplify" is really awkward.
The first two sentences under "origins" contain the word "league" seven times.
"their efforts had been stymied by the political connections that owners of the National League New York Giants had with Tammany Hall." Needs citation.
"who rigidly enforced rules about rowdiness on the field of play" Likewise.
"the "junior circuit"" not clear to non-baseball fans that this means the AL.
"Devery had served as a blatantly corrupt chief of the New York City police" Citation really badly needed.
"was spent in the cellar." Avoid any baseball shop-talk that will make our European readers scratch their heads.
"For fans of the team formally named the Red Sox in 1908" Only for the fans? Unclear on the meaning of this clause.
Who is the Dave Fleming who granted permission to use photos? Is he a photographer? Did you find his collection of photos on the Web?

I will go through the rest of the article later. Andrew Levine 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These suggestions/comments/corrections/cite requests are up to the Ruth-Gehrig Era, I'll add more in a bit...

The word “Yankees” is used too many times within certain paragraphs; change to pronouns occasionally.
While this is true, it needs a cite of some type, “many of the game's biggest stars have been Yankees”
Ambiguous. “…North America over its 100+ year history” Since you’ve committed to the standard American usage of Yankees as a plural noun, you need to be consistent throughout. The sentence as it stands now has “North America” as the antecedent…change it to their.
This sentence is still problematic (and could really use a cite), “…the Yankees have helped exemplify the term "dynasty" in professional athletics.” Consider abandoning this sentence and starting from scratch.
Re “The Boston Red Sox are the Yankees' rivals, with the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry often the most heated rivalry in all of American professional sports.” – the Res Sox are hardly the Yankees only rivals (if they were, all 162 games would be played against the Sox). Additionally, a cite is needed – one could easily argue for other rivalries.
The math here is incorrect, “The Yankees have won 26 World Series in 39 appearances (which, since the first World Series in 1903, currently amounts to an average appearance every 2.6 seasons and a championship every 3.9 seasons);” Additionally, this stat will need to be updated every year.
This needs to be phrased more neutrally, “…where the Dodgers have only managed to win three times while losing eight times.” This is a bit of a slap at the Dodgers (not that I personally mind, I don’t like the team, but nonetheless, it’s still not cool ;)
This needs a cite, “The Yankees are also the only team that is represented at every position in the Baseball Hall of Fame.”
Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but forfeit is likely the wrong word (in that it makes no sense in the context used), “…after which the league declared the team forfeit and took control,…”
While much of the article needs cites (I’ve noted a few above) these statements, as they are derogatory, need a substantiating cite, or preferably two, “Farrell and Devery both had deep ties into city politics and gambling. Farrell owned a casino and several pool halls, while Devery had served as a blatantly corrupt chief of the New York City police and had only been forced out of the department at the start of 1902.”
Cite needed for alleged association, “The name was also a reference to the noted British military unit The Gordon Highlanders, as the team president from 1903 to 1906 was named Joseph Gordon”
The word “tainted” needs to go, and at least one, if not two, cites are needed, “Its somewhat tainted ownership, along with the questionable activities of some players, notably first baseman Hal Chase, raised suspicions of game-fixing, but little of that was ever proven.”
Estranged from whom? A cite is needed, “…owners Farrell and Devery had become estranged and both were in need of money”.
Something is missing here, the grammar needs some work, “At the start of 1915, they sold the team to Colonel Jacob Ruppert and Captain Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston brewery fortune and had also been tied to the Tammany Hall machine, serving as a U.S. Congressman for eight years.”

More to come... Jim62sch 12:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More...(through DiMaggio)

Biggest in what way? Biggest what? “However, pitcher-turned-outfielder Babe Ruth was the biggest of them all.”
Relevance? “Two of the four Boston newspapers agreed with the deal at the time.”
Critical is the wrong word, “Other critical newcomers in this period…”
What army? “…Huston was serving in Europe with the army.”
I’m not clear how this follows, “It was truly "the House that Ruth Built",” (The comma needs to be replaced, too).
Cute, but hyperbolic and not encyclopedic, “Stengel would later become a "giant" for the Yankees as a manager.”
This is deceptive, “The 1927 team was so potent that it became known as "Murderers' Row" and is sometimes considered to have been the best team in the history of baseball (though similar claims have been made for other Yankee squads, notably those of 1939, 1961 and 1998).” The same claim has been made for teams from other franchises. They either need to be included, or this portion hast to go as a vio of WP:NPOV and WP:V.
The adjective needs to go, “All of these gaudy numbers…”
Yes, the senator was infamous indeed, but the word has no place in this sentence (See WP:NPOV), “…no relation to the infamous Senator of the same name.”
“…impact player…” is too colloquial for an encyclopedia.
This reads like something from a Yankees’ History sold through the franchise. The adjectives need to go, “Behind the thundering Yankees bats of DiMaggio, Gehrig and Frank Crosetti, and a superb pitching staff led by Red Ruffing and Lefty Gomez and anchored by catcher Bill Dickey, the Yankees reeled off an unprecedented four consecutive World Series wins during 1936-1939. They did it without Gehrig for most of 1939, as the superstar's retirement due to ALS saddened the baseball world.”
First, this needs cites; second, “virtually impossible”? Uh, no, too hyperbolic and not supported by the laws of probability (difficult to accomplish, fine, virtually impossible, hardly). BTW, statistical anomaly has to go, too, as it is not accurate. “Modern baseball historians regard it as unlikely that anyone will ever hit .400 again, barring a change to the way the game is played; and as virtually impossible that anyone will approach DiMaggio's 56-game streak, which is so far beyond second place (44) as to be almost a statistical anomaly.”
Excruciatingly? Hyperbole, again, “…managing excruciatingly bad teams…”
Nice prose, but not encyclopedic. Also “could be said” why whom? “The 1949 season is another that has been written about poetically, as a Yankees team that was seen as "underdogs" came from behind to catch and surpass the powerful Red Sox on the last two days of the season, in a faceoff that could be said to be the real beginning of the modern intense rivalry between these teams.”

More to come... Jim62sch 13:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More (up to A New Dynasty)...

Why “but”? “But on 8 October, 1956, in…”
Odd usage, “…obtained revenge…”
Not encyclopedic. Change, “The Yankees lost the 1960 World Series in heartbreaking fashion…” to “The Yankees lost the 1960 World Series when Bill…”
Hyperbole, and see above for objection re greatest teams, “Because of the excellence of Maris, Mantle, and World Series-MVP Ford, a fine pitching staff, stellar team defense, the team's amazing depth and power, and its overall dominance, the 1961 Yankees are universally considered to be one of the greatest teams in the history of baseball, compared often to their pinstriped-brethren, the 1927 Yankees, the 1939 Yankees, and the 1998 Yankees.”
This needs significant back-up via strong cites, otherwise it reads as mere speculation and does not belong in an encyclopedia, “The Yankees' "special relationship" with the Athletics may have been a way to mask this problem. By the mid-1960s, the Yankees had little to offer in the way of trades, and Finley had taken the Athletics' in a new direction. Some have suggested the Yankees paid the price for bringing black players into the organization later than other teams, though this theory is controversial.”
Change, “George Steinbrenner purchased the club for $10 million on January 3, 1973 from CBS” to “George Steinbrenner purchased the club from CBS for $10 million on January 3, 1973.”
This reads as if Steinbrenner developed and initiated the idea of free-agency, “After the 1974 season, Steinbrenner began the modern era of free agency…”
There’s a problem of causation here, “…a game between the two teams (whether in the regular season or post-season championship games) was cause for a rivalry that was often bitter and ruthless…”
Not encyclopedic, “…went on a tear…”
Adjective use, “…fielded excellent offensive teams…”
Not encyclopedic, “Yankee bats were starting to sputter”
This should be irony, not oddity (although neither is really encyclopedic), “To add to the oddity…”

MTC Jim62sch 13:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rest...

Subjective and non-encyclopedic, “The bad judgment and bad luck of…”
Which paper? Cite? “("Clueless Joe" ran the headline on one of the city's tabloid newspapers)”
Relevance? “Dwight Gooden, who had pitched a no-hitter for the Yankees in April, did not even start a World Series game.”
By whom? Not to flog a dead horse, but statements like this need to be substantiated, “The 1998 Yankees are widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest teams in baseball history…”
Syntax, “In the emotional October 2001,…”
Adjective use, “…uncharacteristically lost the lead…”
Not encyclopedic, “The Yankees had huge holes to fill….”
The entire first paragraph of “Fan support” needs to be written more neutrally, and the suppositions regarding the Mets need to go.
This section needs at least a cite, as I doubt they are well-known outside New York, “The Bleacher Creatures”
This section needs to be re-titled and rewritten, “Opposing fans and hatred”

Overall (despite all of the things I noted) the article is very interesting, full of interesting facts and statistics and reasonably well-written. However, there are some problems with neutrality WP:NPOV, verifiability WP:VER, and WP:MOS. The use of in-line citations would help immensely for items that may be questioned. BTW, I'm neither a Yankees fan nor detractor as I come from an NL city and don't worry too much anout the AL until October. On the other hand, I do have a certain admiration for the team and its players (past and present) as do the authors of this article -- but, remember, to be encyclopedic, that admiration should not be obvious to the reader. Jim62sch 14:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made a lot of the above changes. Still need to put a lot of cites in though. --Sportskido8 15:30 EST, 14 August 2006

Comment - I'd strongly suggest splitting the entire "History" section into a new article (History of the New York Yankees) and then writing a more condensed version for the main NYY page using summary style. The history section is quite thorough, but it probably contains more detail than the average reader looking for information on the Yankees would want. - Pal 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are suggesting this, but I think that the history of this team is too important to split off on its own. 65 KB is not unbearable, is it? --Sportskido8 10:11 EST, 21 August 2006 (UTC)