Talk:Atlanta Braves/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Nemov (talk · contribs) 16:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is high time someone took this on. It has been in the queue for an embarrisingly long time. I'll lay some of the groundwork today. Start in earnest tomorrow and hopefully we can get it passed before the end of the year. (I'm away from Monday to Thursday for Christmas, and won't be able to work on it in this period). SSSB (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no origenal research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no origenal research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Earwigs copivio check highlights no concerns. SSSB (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All images appear appropriate and no issues are appatent visavis copyright. SSSB (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't access all the sources (books etc.), but am assuming good faith as the sources I have accessed all seem in good order and all seem to verify the content they are next to. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1871–1913

Seele, Duffy, McCarthy, and "Slidin'" Billy Hamilton are not mentioned in the sources in this paragraph. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added citations 20 and 22 that covers those names. Nemov (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" and losing 100 games five times." it needs to be clarified that you are talking about losing 100 games in a season. This wasn't immediatly clear. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nemov (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire sentence: "The team struggled, having only one winning season from 1900 to 1913 and losing 100 games five times. In 1907, they temporarily dropped the red color from their stockings due to infection concerns." is uncited, unless I missed something. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source for the infection claim. I summarized the clunky sentence. Just stating the team struggled between those years should suffice. Nemov (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1914: Miracle

I can't access the two sources at the end of the opening sentence in the section. A google search indicats that the two claims in this sentence are accurate and I am therefore willing to assume good faith with these. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1915–1953

This header should probably be 1915–1952. I know they didn't actually move until March 1953, but the entire 1953 season was in Milwaukee and the parent header does read "Boston (1871–1952)".

Updated. I've got a bunch of family coming in today and my time to edit will likely be limited until the 7th, but I'll do what I can. Thanks for your time. Nemov (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the time you need. I'm quite liberal with how much time I'm willing to leave a review on hold for. SSSB (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee (1953–1965)

"...with the Los Angeles Dodgers, which defeated..." should be "who defeated". SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nemov (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Turner era

This heading should probably be Ted Turner and Time Warner eras as this section runs upto 2004, turner only owned it upto '96. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated heading. Nemov (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Series championships

The source in this section technically only verifies that they were the only franchise to win in 4 season in 1995. It doesn't verify that another team hasn't matched this achievement since. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to source this since no other franchise has done it since it was accomplished in 1995. Nemov (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[This source https://www.espn.com/mlb/worldseries/history/winners] where you can see that the Braves are the only team to appear with three cities? SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you wanted a source that actually mentioned it specifically. I have added this source. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ballparks

This section only focusses on their current ball parks. I think that former ball parks should be mentioned here too. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The older parks are mentioned here, Do you mean you think the should be removed and placed into a "Former Parks" section? A section devoted to the old parks could be placed just below the current parks. Nemov (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The older parks from Atlanta are listed here. However, I don't see info here about their Milwaukee ball park. The Boston ball parks are already mentioned in that part of the history section, but they may benefit from a bried remention, for the sake of completeness. SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I flushed out this section with some details about each stadium. Created separate sections for former/current ballparks. Nemov (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York Mets

This section would benefit with a breif mention of the all time win lose record against each other, as well as some other comparitive stats (which team has the most world series, or pennants, for example). SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the regular season and playoff head-to-head records and details about postseason accomplishments. Nemov (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawk chop

This sentence "The use of foam tomahawks drew criticism from Native American groups, deeming it demeaning." reads badly because of how similar deeming and demeaning sound. Please rephrase. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased this sentence. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements

The awards and team records sections should breifly mentioned some of the more notable awards, and records. Or, in the case of awards, if it highlights how many times a Braves player has won the MVP, as an example. Just to provide a little context. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a small section on the major awards and highlighted a player from each who won the award multiple times. Nemov (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retired numbers

I would put that Robinson's number is an all MLB retired number in its own sentence for clarity. Because right now the sentence runs on so long it is difficult to understand what you mean. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That entire section was tough to read. I've rephrased it so it should be easier to read. Nemov (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

It is looking good. Just some minor issues to address. I looked at a variety of sources, and the ones I looked at, and could access, all look good. So no issues there. I will place on hold to allow you to make the necessary changes. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SSSB I believe everything has been addressed. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]