Talk:Shibe Park/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I will a look at this one over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I have conducted a first read through and will leave my comments below

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose itself is excellent and it was enjoyable reading. The biggest issue I have is with the tone of the article; in many places it reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopaedic article. A little bit of flamboyance in writing style is not a problem, but in many cases this leans too much towards puffary. It also presents information too much in Wikipedias voice, when opinions are giving they should not appear to come from us. I will leave some examples below, but these do not represent every such instance.

   The tone has improved a lot and although slightly more flamboyant than any self respecting encyclopadia should be, I would rather read a well-written article than a collection of stats. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Will check this later

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Focus is slipping away from the stadium a bit much in the 1938–1954: New tenant, new name, new owner section and too much onto the teams. I feel this section can be reduced by about half. If possible information could be moved to the Phillies or A's articles where it will be more relevant.

   Fixed AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Mentions the good with the bad.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I haven't checked the images yet, but I feel there are too many. My suggestions would be to consider removing some from: two of the architecture pictures, either the 1910 or 1913 crowd picture, yearbook picture, one of the mack photos (or combine them into a multiple image), menu, two of the 1914 world series, two of the home run hitters, and FDR ticket. Their are two issues here, one is loading time for people with slow internet connections and the other is the text squeezing between two pictures that are close together on smaller screened computers.

Comment I have never considered there to be "too many" pictures. There are lots of pictures that may take up space on a small screen, though most of the pictures are organized and sorted. Some don't need to be there, but it does draw attention to facts that a reader may look over if it were hidden into a paragraph. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{00:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)}

I will look at this on my laptop and see how much the text squeezes. The {{multiple image}} template can help with the text squeezing, but not the load times. As far as the WP:GACR goes, as long as they are relevant then there is nothing suggesting the article should fail for too many images. However, at a minimum I would remove File:Shibe Park and Baker Bowl.JPG; the fair use rational is weak considering the number of other historical photos present and the quality is low. AIRcorn (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is very doable, but still requires some work

   It has had enough time to sort out the non-free images now. AIRcorn (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Below are specific comments, many relating to the points above.

• Examples of puffary: "Foremost" and "perfected" from for the design and its execution, Shibe hired William Steele and Sons, perhaps the foremost architectural and construction firm in town.[7] Their engineering staff had perfected the new technology of steel-reinforced concrete, and they had designed and built the city's first skyscraper, the Witherspoon Building at Walnut and Juniper Streets. Others are "elegant", "technical mastery", "movers and shakers"

• Examples of using the wrong voice: But the boost to their morale from their new digs could not have lasted long Roy and Earle made all the wrong decisions ...now suffering from the tough economy like everyone else

• Examples of too informal language: So popular was baseball in the early years of the 20th century.... Indeed in 21st and Lehigh was a gloomy address indeed in the first years of the Phillies' tenancy. Enter in enter R. R. M. Carpenter, Jr. — Bob — a wealthy 28-year-old Delawarean. He was ready to build. "A quick whirl".

• Also there are a few words used that a non-baseball person might not follow. Wikilinking if possible helps, and in some cases they are relatively easy to work out, but a short bracketed non-jargon word to explain it might also be appropriate. Some examples are Five alarmer, blast, strike, deep fly, tape-measure blasts, grand slams, solo shot, and round-trippers.

• And ambiguity which may be able to be sorted out. May be in The single most famous home run hit at Shibe Park may be the one that stayed inside the park.
• Other general comments
  • He spent a total of $67,500 on seven land packages totaling 5.75 acres, Would be nice to know what this is today. {{Inflation}} can do this easily.
  • For the 1923 season, Connie Mack had moved home plate back an estimated 21 feet. Does this mean just home plate or the whole diamond? I don't follow the next sentence which says the Shibe brothers moved it back out either. Do you mean moved it back to its original position? This paragraph could be made clearer.
  • In the wake of the "spite fence" disagreement a few years before (below) Not sure this is needed here. It is mentioned below and its relevance to this section is not really clear when reading chronologically.
  • A few years later, he would further add a tunnel between the visitors' clubhouse and their dugout to avoid confrontations with belligerent hometown "wolves." Further add doesn't sound right. Not sure what is meant by belligerent hometown "wolves", sounds a bit too in house.
  • The $2.5-million proposal galvanized the 20th Street neighbors against the A's for the third time in fifteen years, The lighting plan is one, but whats the other proposal that was protested against?
  • 20th Streeters, accustomed to the income but now suffering from the tough economy like everyone else, actually sent reps to the lines — such as they were — at the Shibe box office to offer discount seats and snake some customers away from the ball club. "Actually" is not really needed here.
  • Shibe scion Jack tried a quick whirl as a boxing promoter in the early 'teens, shortly after his father built Shibe Park, Should this be in his early teens?
  • But the favorite visitors of all to the stadium management were the Jehovah's Witnesses, "because the Witnesses left the park immaculate." Needs a bit more attribution, to who was this the most favourite
  • Their 1950 Whiz Kids team did win the franchise's sole NL pennant during their years at the park, and the 1964 Phils came close to doing it again — until the infamous "Phold". Wikilink Phold
  • Making things worse was that Phils owner Gerald Nugent was mired in debt to both Mack and the National League, and other NL owners were grumbling about the dismal "gates" that their Philly trips earned them. Would change Phils to Phillies and put (NL) in brackets after National League.
  • Flamboyant Cox set about abrading fans, NL owners and Commissioner Landis, Did he do it on purpose? Maybe abraded fans would be better wording?
  • Cleveland's Frank Carswell defeated Homestead's Ray Brown This seems out of place. Why not just include the names in the previous sentence if they are important
  • The Eagles played the 1948 NFL Championship game in a blizzard; the home team defeated the Chicago Cardinals 7-0 with the only score by a Steve Van Buren touchdown. Grammar

• I'll tackle what I can over the next few days, though I can't guarantee I'll get to everything. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing some good work on this article from a few different editors. Let me know when it is ready for another look. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of "article surgery" and took care of several of those things, though I was unsure of what to do about the Jehova's Witnesses remark (I am not even aware of where that comment actually came from), the abraded fans remark (once again, wasn't sure how to fix it), or the "Cleveland's Frank Carswell defeated Homestead's Ray Brown". The most important thing was to reorganize the sections, so hopefully I didn't miss anything while transplanting the whole section about the spite fence to make it more chronologically sensible. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{07:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)}

And I appreciate all the work that other editors did in between. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)}

Why would you not know the attribution of the Jehovah's Witness quote? There's a footnote to the Kuklick book in the article. The citation comes from there directly. 76.119.234.30 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For statements that strong the reader should not have to follow the footnote to find out who expressed it. It also makes it sound like a fact instead of opinion when it is expressed like that. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The stadium management expressed it, as it says right in the sentence. There is no need "to follow the footnote". Are you reading this carefully? 173.49.170.222 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right. For some reason I was not seeing management and reading it as "favourite visitors of all to the stadium". Would suggest rewording it slightly to "The stadium managements favourite visitors were the Jehovah's Witnesses ..." as it currently could be read that the witnesses were visiting the management. AIRcorn (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You will also want to give your American English a tuneup, which is appropriate for an article on an American stadium per WP:MOS.  :) 76.119.234.30 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

AIRcorn (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for fixing that. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

I am pretty happy with the changes and although phrases like "Opening Day proceedings walked a fine line between festival and chaos" are not overly encyclopaedic the tone has improved a lot. Probably still too many images, but as mentioned above not enough to disrupt any Good article criteria.

• File:ConnieMack1960s.jpg has weak rational. It also seems hard to justify using a non-free picture of the stadium when there are free ones in the article, but with some good rational it might be convincing.
• File:Shibe Park and Baker Bowl.JPG I really think this one should go per my thoughts under images above. At the very least it needs some rational for its use in this article.
• Other images all check out fine, although the fair-use rational on some could be better.
• Reference spot checks turn out fine from what I was able to access on Google books.

The second image can probably go. As for the first picture, are there any free images that just show the view from behind home plate and show the whole field? There should be some "introductory" image that appears in the infobox. Sure, it doesn't have to be that picture, but it doesn't seem like any picture to fill its place. The picture on the right seems like it could work, and it is public domain. The quality isn't as nice, but it has that view. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)}

I have removed the second picture. The first has a few issues, one being the rational provided "Image of interior of notable ball park" not really describing why it is necessary, the presence of other similar pictures (unfortunately I don't think quality is a valid reason to use a non-free one) and it doesn't link to a source properly (I can't find it easily at any rate). For these reasons I think it should be replaced,. The one on the right could go in or any other public domain one you think would work. If you want to keep the current one we can always ask for a second opinion.

said to be the greatest infield of all time. Saw this in the "Baseball at the park" section and it should really say who thinks it is the greatest infield of all time. Typically google books hides the page it is referenced to so I can't tell, although following the wikilink would suggest it was "Baseball historian Bill James".

Lets finish this. I don't feel comfortable passing this with the infobox image. We can get a second opinion about it's validity or change it. I personally think moving this File:Shibe Park 1943.jpg there would be the best solution. It is a good quality and shows roughly the same shot. The warning sign is barely visible in any case, so the article won't lose much if it is moved. AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of "second opinion about it's [sic] validity" are you looking for? If you swap-in the 1943 photo, you're losing the only photo of the Ballantine Beer scoreboard, which is heavily featured in several paragraphs of the text. Are you guys trying to make this a Good Article, or destroy it? You've already removed all the photos of Connie Mack, from whom the place took its name, and many other PD photos that told important stories and made better page layouts. I've lost all my confidence in your editorial judgments. Have any of you had any real-world publishing experience outside of this quaint amateur enterprise? 173.49.170.222 (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have am just a regular Joe giving up his free time to read over an article I would normally have no interest in to the benefit of the encyclopaedia. So no I don't have any publishing experience and am quite proud to be involved in this "quaint amateur enterprise". If requested I can look for a second opinion on whether the photo meets our fair use requirement. I am concerned about #1, that there is no free equivalent, because I can see one right here in the article. I don't care what is used in the infobox, I just suggested the Billboard photo (it won't be lost just moved). I have only removed one photo File:Shibe Park and Baker Bowl.JPG, for much the same reasons. If you think that one should be retained then I can ask for a second opinion on that too. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to single you out, Aircorn, and I apologize; there are several other editors who've been removing valuable photos and making unbelievable changes to the text, like spelling out "SRO" because it "took me a while to decipher that acronym". Really? If one's never heard that term before, then one has no business editing articles. At least not this one. My point is that this was a good article before this recent round of photo eviscerations and some needless (and some valid) text reworkings. The article has been seriously diminished during this process, and neither of us, regular Joes both, can be proud of the sorry result. 173.49.170.222 (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I would have wished to keep was the mini-gallery thing about the 1950 season and how it affected both teams in opposite ways, because it looked neat and added to the style of the article. No one was going to get cancer if the images were removed though, and for a while, I didn't even notice they were gone. I am still puzzled about what to do for the front photo. Maybe the best thing to do is dig for a new picture to use online and ask for proper clearances. Nudge nudge? --67.180.161.183(talk)_{00:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)}

Everyone will have there own preferences on what makes something here a good article. As far as the criteria go this is much closer to reaching "our" standards than it was at the start of the process. The image is the only thing stopping me passing at this stage. We are topping the list of the oldest nominations right now so it would be good to get something sorted soon. Even an empty infobox would be enough. AIRcorn (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I do need to note, Aircorn, that it is not just a "preference" that illustrations increase—and facilitate—readership, it is an accepted rule of thumb in publishing. The photos are what always drew me to this article: they followed the storyline of the text, the captions informed and tantalized, I could scroll down and when I hit a spot of interest, I could veer right into the adjacent text and learn more. That story flow has been destroyed by the ham-handed removal of so many photos. How an editor could remove all photos of Mack, the stadium's namesake, and the detail shot of the distinctive baseball-themed bas-relief is totally beyond me. 67.180.161.183 makes a good point, too, about the 1950 mini-gallery: that is a critical pivot point in the story and was set off perfectly by that graphic, yet some editor saw fit to remove it. This is directly counter to good publishing practice and is why I called the editorial judgment of many of these edits into question. They diminish the article! Finally, 67.180.161.183 makes an excellent point about this image for the infobox; if there's any way to get permission for it, it would be the perfect answer to Aircorn's uneasiness about the infobox. 173.49.170.222 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to crash the party, but I must agree with the I.P.'s on the issue of images. My understanding of the rationale is that if an image portrays a subject clearly, and has obvious relevance to the text of the article, it should be included. I'm completely clueless as to why images like this and this are removed when they have such clear relevance to the text and make for an informative read. In an article as long as this, images are essential to prevent huge blocks of text like the ones we now have. If we have the photos, why not use them? Delaywaves • talk 00:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the Shibe / Baker photo is to vividly illustrate how close the two ballparks were. As to the complaint that it's not of high quality - well, that's one of the stipulations of a fair-use photo - that it not be high resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - each of the removed images contributed to the flow of the article, illustrating or enhancing points from the text, and none of the arguments for their removal makes the slightest bit of sense. I would understand if an image in question was only connected tenuously to the subject of the article, but each of these images clearly represent the subject of each section of the text. If this GA nomination process leads to the permanent removal of these images, it will have served to worsen the article. Colinclarksmith (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the extra comments, but the issue at the moment as far as I am concerned is not the number of images, but the use of non-free ones. Bugs, if you want to insert the Shibe / Baker photo then you need to write some specific rational for this page as to why it is needed for this article here. The infobox one needs to explain in its rational how it meets WP:NFCC#1. It also needs its source updated as I can no longer find it at www.ballparks.com. AIRcorn (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I already told you why. If you can come up with a good "politically correct" way to say it, I'm all ears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Telling me is not good enough, put it on the pictures page instead. Something along the lines of File:EaglesChampGameShibe1948.jpg rational. AIRcorn (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The two Connie Mack photos, the baseball-themed bas-relief, the 1950 Whiz Kids diptych, the Home Run Baker photo, the Mule Haas card, the Foxx TIME magazine cover — all of these were free-use Public Domain photos from the Library of Congress. All were germane, all were removed without explanation. The removals compromised the article's quality. If the issue "is not the number of images, but the use of non-free ones," then let's put these seven free images back in. 173.49.170.222 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as they are free or have valid rational, relate to the topic and follow WP:LAYIM I am aware of no other restrictions to the use of images in an article for it to become a Good article. WP:LAYIM does mention number of images, and gives advice on how to incorporate extra images into an article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the seven free PD images discussed above. 173.49.170.222 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

By restoring all of them, I feel like there's an overabundance of images in the article now; it actually makes it much harder to actually move through the article. I removed those that I felt contributed nothing towards this article in particular (the couple baseball card pictures for example) and I stand by that. As long as they are all tagged properly then there's no number GA gives, but I do feel it causes layout issues, which is a concern. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving the section on the "Spite Fence" up to its chronological spot has interrupted the progression of the history of the expansion/renovation of the stadium under Shibe/Mack control, i.e., pre-Carpenter. The way it now stands, there is a section interrupting a section. The "spite fence" controversy was an anomalous episode that is not part of the growth of the park, so I'm asking for consensus to move it back where it belongs and restore the main progression of the section.173.49.170.222 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wizardman, I do not see the layout issues you mention. The images you removed from the Home Runs section depict the hitter of the first home run in the park, the most home runs in the park, and the most notable home run in the park. So they certainly contribute something. The 1950s diptych marks a critical pivot point in the story, so that contributes something. The stadium was ultimately named after Connie Mack, so photos of him contribute something. The baseball bas-relief contributes to an understanding of the design of the place — so that is something. You might "feel like there's an overabundance" of images, but it is an acknowledged rule-of-thumb that images enhance the readership experience. I, too, stand by my reinstatement of these important images. Let's hear some other peoples' thoughts on the subject.173.49.170.222 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see any "layout issues" introduced by the pictures. I understand that browsers will format articles differently based on their own specifications, but on my browser there are no layout problems to speak of, nor do I find any problems when "moving through" the article: hence my vote to keep the images, which are a big strength of the article in the first place. Colinclarksmith (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss something? There doesn't seem to be any mention here about the discussion being closed. Either way, this discussion is pretty... divided... to say the least. Maybe we should consult some more "upper" people at WP:GAN to decide on the whole photo debate. To me, closing the discussion seems a little premature, because it seems to pass in every subject except the photo case. If there is one conclusion I can draw here, though, we don't have enough people in on the discussion to have a true consensus as to what to do. Then again, more people would mean more arguing. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)}

On a side note, maybe we can just hire a lawyer to write a more convincing rational on File:ConnieMack1960s.jpg than the one I globbed together in 15 seconds. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{02:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)}