# Talk:2019 World Series

We should use the 2019 World Series logo, without the Youtube symbol addition. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Some editor put the Nationals starters for games 1-3. While possibly correct, there's no source to verify this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.199.153 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC) 

The infobox seems bloated to me. What do we think should and shouldn't be included in it? Infinite mission (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The umpires and announcers are the only things that strike me as non-essential. But this is traditional to include, and may result in pushback to keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I added information to Game 5 regarding the reception that President Trump received when he was announced at the game. My brief (one sentence) addition was removed because the other user stated it was extraneous, but I believe it is relevant. The article notes the President's presence at the game. The reaction to him is significant as well because of how unusual it was in the history of president and baseball and because of its context in larger ongoing political and national events. The crowd reaction was significant enough to be noted in a plethora of reputable national news outlets. Baseball is oft described as America's national pastime, and can reflect and amplify other, not-explicitly-sports events, trends, and public opinion in the zeitgeist of the moment. I also disagree that this factual information should be removed because it might spark an edit war. It is indisputable, factual information and it should not be removed because we are afraid some people might not like the existence of a particular fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustusSforza (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 

Perhaps there could be a page regarding Presidential attendance at World Series games.  I believe Trump's visit was the thirteenth. Hoover was apparently booed in 1930.  There is a section on Presidential first pitches in Ceremonial_first_pitch. There could be a section in World_Series on Presidential attendance at World Series games.  Documenting and describing them all is more interesting than the mention of the Trump visit in the game description, though I do think it's relevant - it's unfortunate that it ends up being an edit war.  Tom Mtn View CA (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that at the very least, a sentence or two mention of the booing and heckling of Trump is justified in this section on this page; Those headlines (and I know, WP is not a newspaper...) dominated the news this morning all across the U.S. and beyond. As alluded to above, the World Series is not just a sporting event, it is a cultural event, and the heckling is part of the story. This edit was made with the comment "Information like this could cause an editing war. It would be best to leave it out." I agree that we do not want edit wars, so we should come to some agreed-upon verbiage regarding Trump's appearance there. KConWiki (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I am open to suggestions of wording, but I don't think some people not liking that President Trump was booed is a good reason to exclude the most heavily reported and commented on event of the entire game from the page containing information about that game. I am not unsympathetic to wanting to avoid edit wars, but this seems like suppressing factual information because the facts make some people upset, which is not a good modus operandi for what is supposed to be a site of factual record. Here are two sentences that caused a kerfuffle (the first was already present; the second one I added): "President Donald Trump arrived shortly before the start of the game.[43][44] When his presence was announced during the game, Trump - undergoing a Congressional impeachment inquiry - was greeted with sustained boos, chants of "Lock Him Up," and signs calling for his impeachment.[45]" These two sentences are backed up by dozens of reports from reputable sources and were a major news story (again, arguably the aspect of the game that will be most remembered). Is there a different way to phrase those two sentences that is both accurate and broadly acceptable? We should not shy away from including the facts of political/cultural events just because they occur at a sports game. --AugustusSforza (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that unless someone can make a convincing argument to the contrary on this talk page, that we should go ahead and add something like what was just outlined above, and that the edit should reference this discussion in the edit summary. ANyone with a contrary view, please feel free to comment. KConWiki (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
We should include one sentence about it, like I saw earlier in the article. Just one sentence that says he was booed. It should not mention impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't relevant to the game play on the field.  What is next, saying the entire stadium did "baby shark"?  It would be best to leave it out. posty (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
It is just going to get put back. I dispute the idea that the only thing that is article-worthy is the actual playing of baseball. As noted above, I believe that the World Series is a cultural event, and that the activity surrounding it is potentially includable in its WP article. I think it is much better to arrive at some agreed-upon verbiage that summarizes the Trump incident, in a manner that neither overshadows the actual game play, but also does not treat the heckling as if it did not occur. Thanks to all for their contributions, and let's discuss further as needed. KConWiki (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eposty: Agreed with this. The notoriety of the event clearly warrants its inclusion in the article. The story has been the main subject of (non-editorial, with the exception of Bloomberg and The Independent) articles in The New York Times, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Fox News, The Guardian, the Washington Examiner, Politico, ESPN, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Time, Vox, The Hill, NPR, MarketWatch, Newsweek, HuffPost, the Agence France-Presse, Yahoo Sports, The Independent, BBC News, Reuters, the Associated Press, VICE News, NBC Sports, CNN, CBS News, ABC News (both the American and Australian ones), and I could keep going. It's clearly ridiculous to argue that this has no relevance to encyclopedic coverage of the game when it has mountains of substantial coverage in dozens of prominent publications.
I actually find TMiller's suggestion of an article about presidential attendance of World Series games to be a fantastic idea. That article could give this event and others the depth of coverage they need, and there could be maybe a single sentence talking about the booing in the page about the 2019 World Series. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary of this revert (the 3rd by same IP) was the proverbial "stick to sports" argument. However WP:DUE is the relevant Wikipedia policy, and one or two sentences seems reasonable, especially when it's still being referenced 3 days later.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to tag the section with {{Controversy section}} while this is on the main page, but it is considered a POV violation to have separate sections for "controversy" or "criticism". Those items should be moved into the appropriate game section. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Didn't follow WS too closely.  Were the bad calls a big theme, or is it just cherry-picking a debated call or two and then making it a seemlingly bigger deal in a dedicated section. That would required coverage that talks about the calls over the series, even better post-series, and not just plucked from individual game coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Bagumba, disappointed the Yankees didn't make it too? The blown calls would be a major omission to not mention. Davey became the first manager to be ejected fr a World Series game since Bobby Cox, the king of ejections. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I was only questioning if the bad calls needed to be grouped in a dedicated section.  No issue with mention at its respective game section.—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This weekend (Nov. 2–3), I plan move content out of the Controversies section (which will then be removed) into the applicable Game sections. It became something of a holding area, and the content should now be merge-able. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Dmoore5556, great! – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Merge completed, section removed. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

While this is true, it doesn't seem to be a big enough theme of the World Series to warrant being in the lead. Thje bigger story was it being the  Nationals' first and the road team winning all games. It also goes against WP:PLA to just fact drop it in the lead, without explaining the Senators background.  This is best left in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that there should be a picture of Michael Brantley as an Astro.  Better yet, one from the world series or playoffs. I don't think I can do that soon, can someone help?  Thank you in advance, Ghinga7 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ghinga7: It would have to be a free image.  Do you have or know of one?—Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Sorry I haven't responded in a while, I tend to post something and then forget about it.  Also, I went on a  humorous essay reading spree (if that's a thing).  I do not know of any pictures, any suggestions would be welcome.  I was thinking of going to a spring training game,but my local team doesn't play them. In plus, that's a while away.  Any suggestions? User:Ghinga7
@Ghinga7: See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission about asking people for permission to use their currently non-free images. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding one of the leading paragraphs about the Road Teams winning. Currently the paragraph begins by stating that the "Houston Astros had home-field advantage". I understand this sentence is there due to the nature of the "home disadvantage" situation. Unfortunately, starting the paragraph that way changes the reader's interpretation of the purpose of the paragraph. It makes the reader think the main focus is "who had home-field advantage". However, the focus is actually about the fact that the "road team won all seven games". Hence, the paragraph's first sentence should be about the road team winning all seven games.
There are two solutions to this problem:
1) Move the "Astros had home-field" sentence elsewhere in the paragraph. Problem with this solution is it doesn't fit anywhere else in the paragraph (hence why it's the first sentence) without sounding less professional.
2) Remove the sentence outright. The addition of the sentence is helpful, but in the end it harms more than it helps. Strangewrite385 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw your latest changes. I'm more concerned about getting the proper content first before wordsmithing and a potential FA status. It seems reasonable to expect the lead to tell who had home-field advantage and present the wide discrepancies in their records, if not even flat out say the Astros were generally favored (not sure if that's in the body yet). Flowing from a topic sentence is not necessarily required when the present style of the article is more narrative.—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 World Series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Could you please provide a courtesy ping back, just to confirm that you are still editing and happy to work on this? A quick glance through doesn't reveal anything too major. I'll check over the sources first, and then proceed with a prose review. Harrias talk 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: – hi, just seeing your note here now. Yes, I am still active, and able to work on this. This weekend, I'll review and follow-up on the feedback made so far. Thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: – I'm making edits now, placing Y marks next to sections I've worked through, and adding some comments where applicable. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: – Please see the latest version of the article, as time permits. I went through your comments (which were helpful, thanks) and the recap of each game to make suggested edits, along with reducing some jargon and/or providing page links or explanatory notes. I believe we can expect an article on the World Series to contain some baseball-specific language, akin to a recap of The Ashes containing some cricket-specific language, etc. That said, we should avoid sports jargon becoming so thick that it's a barrier to readers; there's a balance to be found, hopefully. If you can take a look and let me know what you still see as areas of concern, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: – Sourcing updated to replace Twitter and YouTube references. Will await your feedback. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dmoore5556: Thanks for your work on this. Somehow I had missed your pings. I will start going through it again in the next day or so. Harrias talk 20:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources Y
Please replace the Twitter and YouTube references where possible. Most look pretty replaceable. Otherwise their are no major concerns from the sources, I'll provide a more detailed review later.
Lead Y
Use endashes rather than hyphens for the teams' records (ie, (107–55) rather than (107-55)). Also provide an explanation for what these mean; this notation method is not that common outside of North American sports.
"was the 3rd World Series" Write out "third".
"..was decided by the regular season record of the two pennant winners" Hyphenate "regular-season", as in the previous sentence. Also, what is a pennant winner? Presumably the two teams, but no explanation is given.
Background Y
"..Milwaukee Brewers - who began as the Seattle Pilots - and San.." Endashes, not hyphens, please.
"The World Series appearance also means.." Replace "The" with "Their".
"..yet to play in a Fall Classic is.." Is a Fall Classic the same as a World Series? This needs explaining, as at the moment, "Fall Classic" has been mentioned with no explanation. They are the same, but I removed the colloquial term as it was an unnecessary distraction there.
"Prior to this year's Series, the Astros and Nationals had never played each other in a postseason series before, .." It's optional, but for clarity in future years, it might be better to phrase this as "Prior to the 2019 Series.." Also, remove "before", which is redundant.
"..share a Spring training site.." No need to capitalise "spring".
"..four games behind the Atlanta Braves.." What does this mean? They played four less games? Won four less games? Something else? Page link added to applicable article
"..the Nationals swept the.." An explanation or wikilink for "swept" is necessary here. Reworded
"..for a Washington, D.C., team since 1933." To avoid the slightly awkward construction here, rephrase as "..for team from Washington D.C. since 1933."
"..franchise that began play the year following year, 1961, and that team.." Something went wrong here! I removed some excessive historical detail which was being given undue weight here
Expand the Texas Rangers linked to cover the whole phrase "Texas as the Rangers".
Expand the Houston Astros section to be a similar length to the Washington Nationals section, to maintain balance.
Summary Y
The table needs to include row and column scopes to meet MOS:ACCESS, as described in MOS:DTT. Some changes will need to be made to the template for this to work. Sadly, this MOS isn't a GA requirement, so this is optional. N Such a template change is outside my current area of knowledge.
In a sortable table, items need to be linked on each occurrence, not just the first time. Y
Game 1
It isn't necessary to link Minute Maid Park or Houston in this table. Y
What do the number column headers mean? This isn't clear to a lay person, and requires explanation. added brief lead to the Game summaries section
Is all the information in the table referenced to the boxscore? Where does 7:08 come from, the boxscore lists 7:10 as the first pitch? corrected times per box scores (actual, rather than scheduled)
"In the bottom of the first.." What is "the bottom of the first"? added explanatory note
"..hit a two-run double with two outs.." What is a "two-run double with two outs"? adjusted wording
"..the top of the second.." What is "the top of the second"? added explanatory note
"..drove in a run.." What does this mean? drove in --> batted in
Is a "reliever" a relief pitcher? Again, this could do with explaining. reliver --> relief pitcher
"The Astros loaded the bases.." Explain "loaded the bases". page link added
Provide a link for "walks". Y
"..single off of Daniel Hudson.." "off of" is bad grammar; "off" will suffice. Y
What is a "pinch-hitter"? added page link
What is a "fly ball"? added page link
What does "retired the side in order" mean? added page link
What does "lined out" mean? added page link
Okay, I'm going to take a break there. The article has a lot of jargon, and is pretty inaccessible to a layperson. I can work some of it out from my meagre knowledge of baseball, and my much better knowledge of cricket, and I'm still finding it hard going. Harrias talk 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Game 2
"Starting pitchers were Stephen.." Insert "The" at the start of the sentence, to avoid sounding like journalese. Y
Again this is very jargon heavy. Even if more explanation were provided, via wikilinks or notes, I think parts of it are near incomprehensible to those not familiar with the sport. For example "..he was charged with four runs on seven hits while striking out six batters..". Sentence added in the Game Summaries section lead to provide some context.
I'm going to put this on hold for the moment, and ask that you work through the entire article to make it more readable to someone not familiar with baseball. Harrias talk 11:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you have put into this. While it is obviously still jargon heavy, I was able to understand it much better with the additional notes and links. I was expecting to have to add a lot more, but I'm actually happy this meets GA standards now. Ideally (and this is beyond the scope of GA) I would like the first paragraph of the Background section to be expanded to include more information on the Astros background: some detail is given about the Nationals, but not so much about the Astros. But as I say, this meets all the GA criteria now. Nice work. Harrias talk 14:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)