Talk:Vic Raschi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs) 10:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this review, as part of the July 2021 Backlog Drive.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[He pitched in three straight All-Star Games from 1948 to 1950 and appeared in a fourth in 1952.] The way this is phrased makes it sound like he didn't pitch in the fourth one, but merely appeared in some other role. It looks like he did pitch in the game, so I'd shorten this to, "He pitched in three straight All-Star Games from 1948 to 1950, and a fourth in 1952."

[After pitching in relief for the Yankees in the 1947 World Series, Raschi won five in a row with the ballclub from 1949 to 1953, pitching a shutout in Game 1 of the 1950 World Series.] This could be misinterpreted as Raschi having won five World Series starts in a row; I'd tweak to clarify that it refers to the team winning the series itself.

Minor league career and military service

[he was promoted to the Yankees for the very first time.] To me, the phrase "very first time" is used to refer to something that subsequently happened a lot, maybe hundreds or thousands of times. As he was only called up to the Yankees twice, I'd simply say "for the first time" here.

1947

[Hoping to stick with the Yankees] A bit informal for an encyclopedia. Perhaps simply "remain with"?

[a game that Baldarasso called "one of his best outings of the year."] It looks like Baldarasso isn't a contemporary source - perhaps best just to let the 10 shutout innings speak for themselves? At the least, Baldarasso should be identified, as this is the only time he's named in the main article text.

1948

[He threw a second consecutive one] I'd specify "second consecutive shutout". I know you used the term "shutout" in the previous sentence, but you talked a bit about his winning run after that. It could cause confusion.

[drew the Yankees into a near-tie for first place in the AL] I think it would be more standard to say that he drew the Yankees within half a game of the AL lead (perhaps linking to Games behind in case readers aren't clear on what a half game is).

1950

[An arm injury] A bit non-specific - do we have any details on the nature of the injury?
- Good question, but I don't think so. If I remember right, I checked around May 13 on the NYT archive and couldn't find any articles about the injury (an annoying but not necessarily uncommon problem). Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1951

[Another error (a passed ball allowed by Berra) led to all the scoring against Raschi in Game 6, but the Giants only picked up one run against him in six innings.] I'd suggest replacing "but" with "as". Having established that all the scoring against him sprang from a single error, the reader's expectation will be that not many runs were scored.

1952

[in the former of the games] Slightly awkward phrasing. I'd recommend "against the former".

[the largest crowd at Yankee Stadium thus far that season] "Thus far", I believe, always refers to the present time (i.e. 2021), so can't be used like this. How about "up to that point in the season"?

[As the Yankees had won the AL pennant again, Raschi made three appearances in the World Series against the Dodgers.] Him making three appearances doesn't necessary follow from the Yankees winning the pennant (he might have only appeared once if the series had been a sweep). Also, it's probably worth splitting the starts and relief appearances. I'd tweak this to "As the Yankees had won the AL pennant again, Raschi played in the World Series against the Dodgers, where he made two starts and a relief appearance."

1953

[The seven RBI set an AL record for a pitcher in a game, and they were a major league record for pitchers until Tony Cloninger drove in nine runs on July 3, 1966.] Is this still an AL record? Worth noting if so.

[In Game 3, he and Preacher Roe allowed their opponents just two runs until the eighth inning] A little confusing - Roe could be taken to be a teammate who relieved Raschi. How about "opposing pitcher Preacher Roe", to avoid any confusion?

St. Louis Cardinals (1954–55) and Kansas City Athletics (1955)

[After defeating the Red Sox on August 5, had a 4–4 record] Missing word: "he".

Summary

No problems beyond the minor issues listed above - the article is well-sourced, clear and thorough. I'll await your responses on the above.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole:, I disagree with the "Well-sourced", hence the talk page section above. The GA criteria state: An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review: ... It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. {{One source}} would count as a similar tag and I felt that it obviously needed it because of the massive over-reliance on a single source for biographical information. This article is only as accurate as we think that SABR is and there is no independent verification of any of the information taken from that source. SABR has a good reputation and it is likely to be accurate but it is not good practice to base a biography on one source (even a RS) without some attempts at bringing in other sources for verification. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:Thanks, I hadn't spotted the one source tag (still a little new at this). The SABR article itself mentions five other sources, but perhaps these don't count, as they're indirect, rather than direct sources? I'll await Sanfranciscogiants17's response on whether some other sources can be brought in to take some of the load off the SABR article. With regard to Baseball Reference, which you also mentioned, the various Sports Reference websites are very reliable stat sources, and I don't think there should be a problem with citing it repeatedly as a source of raw data (I hope not, as Pro Football Reference is my go-to when I need NFL stats).--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole:, I don't think that the Baseball Reference source is used incorrectly. I was just pointing out that it is the most-frequently-used source for the remainder of the article not sourced to SABR and therefore doesn't address the single-sourcing of the biography. You are correct that the sources used by the SABR source aren't sources for our purposes. There is no such thing as indirect sourcing or sourcing by incorporation. An editor would need to cite the sources SABR used directly if they were to comply with our verifiability policy. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when I source SABR, there will be specific attribution within the SABR article to which sources its information is derived from, and I can credit those correctly. I'd do so this time, but unfortunately, this SABR article just generally credits them, so I can't adjust those to the more specific references (otherwise I would).

Eggishorn is completely accurate that SABR and Baseball-Reference are cited 22 and 20 times, respectively. This in itself does not make the article not well-sourced, however. The article has many citations to The New York Times as well and incorporates info from other newspapers--The Ottawa Citizen, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Bend Bulletin, The Day, The Gettysburg Times, The Pittsburgh Press, The Dispatch, The Evening Citizen, The Bulletin, The Nashua Telegraph The Gadsden Times, and The Victoria Advocate. Regarding the biography, assuming Eggishorn is talking about the Gittleman book (not exactly a biography, as it is about 3 people instead of one, but I know of no others of Raschi), his claim that this book is not directly cited is false, as it is directly cited twice during the article. A Good Article doesn't have to cite every source about someone; Sal Maglie reached GA status without even one cite from two biographies about him, as it had enough citations for other sources to be well-researched. I must disagree that this over-relies on SABR and Baseball-Reference. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanfranciscogiants17 and Eggishorn: Thanks, Sanfranciscogiants17. I've had a quick search, but can't find a biography dedicated entirely to Raschi, and the Gittleman book is indeed cited twice. There are also 40+ citations from contemporary news sources. Having looked at the {{One source}} rules, I do believe there's enough of a spread of sources in the article. I'd like to pass it as GA, but will wait to see whether Eggishorn has any further thoughts on the article first.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a couple of days have gone by, I'm going to promote the article. Eggishorn can put it up for reassessment if he strongly feels it doesn't meet GA standard.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been 4th of July weekend here. I've just gotten back on to the site as it wasn't really my highest priority at this time. Go ahead though, I don't see the utility of denying other editors honors. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]