Wikipedia:Peer review/Official scorer/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Official scorer[edit]

Toolbox
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 have just finished a very significant expansion and re-write of this rather obscure subject. My ultimate goal is to get this to GA-status, and I believe it is probably close to meeting that, but would like a quick peer review to find any glaring errors before I nominate.

Thank you! Aaron north (T/C) 18:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this PR today, I received plenty of helpful suggestions to keep me busy. Aaron north (T/C) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jappalang
  • Much appreciated! I agree with almost all of the comments in this PR, and the article will be improved because of your suggestions. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Official scorer" is more like a dictionary definition (the officially appointed score keeper), and is used in many sports. Why should this term be used for baseball? Would "Scoring system in baseball" or "Baseball scorer" be a better and more precise term?

I do not agree. The term "official scorer" is very strongly associated with the game of baseball, and the use of that term is virtually non-existent in other sports. It is possible that you may have had the word "scorekeeper" in mind, but the official scorer in baseball is not the guy who operates the scoreboard. There is only one link in the first five pages of google (related to hockey) that was not related to baseball. If there is ever an article about an "official scorer" in another sport, a disambig page may be appropriate to point to that. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

  • I think the third paragraph, which details the job of the scorer, should be inserted to the first (before the second sentence). Without it, the casual reader might assume that the scorer's job might affect the game.
  • I can do that, I think I was following the order of the article. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "Henry Chadwick was the inventor of the modern box score, the writer of the first rule book for the game of baseball, and is generally credited with the invention of scorekeeping in baseball."
    I think the parallelism is messed up here. "He was the <noun>, the <noun>, and is <intransient verb>". From the first two clauses, I would expect the third part to be the same as well (in the vein of "He was ... the <noun>"). By using "and is <intransient verb>", it makes me think the second clause is a descriptive (and applied to the "box score"). Might I suggest "The modern box score used in baseball games was invented by Henry Chadwick, writer of the first rule book for the game and generally credited with the invention of its scorekeeping."?
  • "... the leagues began to impose qualification requirements and require approval ..."
    On the reports or the writer? Approval from who?
  • Yes, that is vague and possibly unsupported, I'll reword it. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... writers who were willing to score games for MLB were required to have seen 100 or more games per year in the prior three years and to be chosen ..."
    "Who were willing"... is this a duty or voluntary? Why not simply "scorers"? "Seen", "watched", or "reported on"? Each has different connotation, and "seen" is the most casual in terms of action (one could have passed by the game, looked at it through the gates for ten seconds, and be considered to have "seen" the game).
  • writers (rather than scorers) is important because later that same sentence it is made clear that the BBWAA made the call (subject to approval from the league) A random guy off the street couldn't be the official scorer, that was handled by the writers. You are correct that "seen" is vague, aside from being a writer and a member of the BBWAA, you had to attend (not just see) 100 games at the stadium to be considered. I'll clarify. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early controversies

  • What is the point of Thornley's quote? If it is to add flavour, perhaps making it a pull quote (with box) at the side?
  • "Baseball writers who were selected by MLB to perform as the official scorer usually worked the games which were played at the home stadium of the team which they covered for their newspaper. These sportswriters were asked to objectively make decisions which could impact the statistics of the team they were writing about for the season. Because of this, the official scorer was often presumed to favor the home team when making the required judgment calls during the course of a game."
    The first sentence is in my view a "snake" (sentence with many ideas) with a double "which"s.
  • "Official scorers of an MLB game are selected by the baseball organization. The scorer is tasked to make objective decisions that could impact the statistics of the teams. He or she is usually a baseball journalist who reports on the home team; because of this affiliation, the scorers are often presumed [by who?] to favor the home team."
  • That is a good suggestion, I may use that. "by who?" was answered later in the article, but I agree that it would probably be more appropriate to explain and support that earlier rather than make the assertion and support it further down. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseball jargon ("no-hitter", "scorer-baiting", etc) should be briefly explained (in parantheses for example) to help readers less familiar with the game.
  • Sure. (Incidentally, "scorer-baiting" is a strange unfamiliar term that was likely made up by the league at the time of the controversy and not used again. I used it because that odd term was in the source. Since I didn't quote them, I think it would probably be better for me to paraphrase that term using clearer language) Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to the language issue I pointed above, I note that there is a striking difference (to me) in the style between History and Responsibilities. The language in Responsibilities is more concise and precise (clearer). Most of this section is sourced to Wirkmaa. I am unable to check the source, but it would do good to check if the writing here is adapted "far enough" from its source; getting a third-party who has access to the source to check would be of much more help. Ref: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing.
  • Thanks for the comment about that section being clear. The responsibilities portion is a subject that is very clinical in nature, and does not naturally lend itself to editorializing or opinions at all, so it is very easy to write that part clearly. The primary source is the rules of baseball, and it is difficult (if not impossible) to have multiple valid interpretations from credible secondary sources. The rules are the rules (rule 10 in this case), there's only one valid interpretation of rule 10. I basically bought a recent well-regarded used book to source it. I could buy or borrow a second book about MLB rule 10 to confirm, but I strongly suspect (given my own knowledge of baseball scoring) that the second book would just use different words to say the same thing, and I would simply end up with 2 cites after every paragraph instead of one. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I am stopping here, but I feel the article deserves a copy-edit to make it a smoother read. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this much, I frankly believed I needed more help with the first couple sections anyway! Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I, too, noticed the difference between the upper half of the article and the lower half. The first half is more colorful and varied. If I were working on the article, I'd try to think of ways to compress the text of second half and to make it more inviting; illustrations of the scoring might be one way to add interest. Here are a few other suggestions for improvement:

  • Would it be helpful to include an illustration of a box score?
  • Perhaps, but we already have one article about how to score a game, so I cant get too much into it. (This is one cool oddity about baseball, it is common for hundreds or thousands of fans in the seats to have their own scoresheet to score the game, everyone basically has their own way to do it, etc.) Looking at the talk history, it seems decided that the article is about the official scorer rather than how to score, so I included only those scoring situations where a judgment call is required and the fans expect to be told what happened by the official scorer. All that said, I agree that it is a bit of a wall of text down there. If I can find one, it wouldn't hurt to include a free or fair-use image of a scoresheet filled out by an official scorer. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Controversies have occurred due to a perceived bias or error in scoring decisions which have led to questions about some of baseball's milestones, including Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak in 1941 and several questioned no-hitters." - To avoid using "milestone", which is a bit slangy, and to avoid repeating "question", maybe a slight revision would be in order. - Suggestion: "Controversies related to perceived bias or errors in scoring have led to questions about important baseball records, including several no-hitters and Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak of 1941."
  • "In 2001, MLB formed a scoring committee to review the performance of official scorers, and by 2008 the scoring committee was given the authority to overturn scoring decisions." - Recast to avoid repeating "score" four times.
  • "the official scorer is also charged with making judgment calls that do not affect the progress or outcome of the game, such as errors... " - Errors and the other things in the list are not "judgment calls". Rather, the scorer makes judgment calls about these things.
  • True, I'll probably break it up after "game", and incorporate your suggestion. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early controversies

  • "Criticism of scoring decisions date back to the earliest days of the game." - Tighten by one word by deleting "back"?

Analysis and proposed changes

  • "This new umpire would travel with the four-man crew to score games... " - Should "four-man crew" be briefly explained for readers who know little about MLB umpires.
  • Yeah, that would probably be helpful. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it is not currently feasible because of the design of most stadiums in the league... " - What is it about stadium designs that would prevent the change?
  • I would have to guess on it. My guess would be that it is probably because MLB would want an enclosed area with a roof seperated from the fans with a microphone, etc. (That would be economically difficult to justify if the press box is "good enough" since you would be eliminating a lot of prime expensive seating.) The source from MLB was just as vague as it was written in the article. The reason would seem obvious to baseball fans per my comment above, but OR isn't allowed and this isn't something that is written about very often. I'll try to find a source which explains the reasoning more explicitely, but the way it is now might be the best I can do. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 10.1

  • "including called games" - Should "called games" be linked or briefly explained?

Errors

  • "If a fielder fails to tag the runner, batter, or a base in a force situation in time to record an out when they could have done so, that fielder is charged with an error." - "Fielder" is singular, but "they" is plural. Maybe "he" instead of "they"? I would say "she or he", but there are no women on MLB teams.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much appreciated! I agree with almost all of the comments in this PR, and the article will be improved because of your suggestions. Aaron north (T/C) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Official_scorer/archive1&oldid=1136084884"