# Talk:Houston Astros sign stealing scandal

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/ex-blue-jays-reliever-sues-astros-1.5458728  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.141.19 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC) 

 Done lawsuit was added to Houston_Astros_sign_stealing_scandal#Lawsuits section. --  LuK3  (Talk) 01:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Change 
"The Astros finished in first place in the American League (AL) West division for the 2017 season with a win–loss record of 107–55.[13] They were 60–21 at home and 47–34 on the road."
to
"The Astros finished in first place in the American League (AL) West division for the 2017 season with a win–loss record of 101–61.[13] They were 48–33 at home and 53-28 on the road."

Change
"The Astros finished in first place in the AL West again in 2018 with a 107–55 record (50–31 at home and 47–34 away) but lost the AL Championship Series to the Red Sox."
to
"The Astros finished in first place in the AL West again in 2018 with a 103–59 record (46–35 at home and 57–24 away) but lost the AL Championship Series to the Red Sox." 2601:483:4F80:1790:9199:168E:9CA6:1437 (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

These changes were put into the article by another editor.  RudolfRed (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact Bob Melvin, the manager of the Oakland A's, had previously reported the Astros to the MLB Commissioner's Office prior to Mike Fiers going public should be in this article. Because that report wasn't publicly reported, the Commissioner's Office buried the report. See: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2876040-athletics-filed-complaint-on-astros-cheating-to-mlb-before-mike-fiers-comments  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.248.172.246 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 

Change the Tony Kemp linked wiki (in the Astros reactions section) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kemp_(baseball) ScootsySr (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

ScootsySr,  Done. Thanks for pointing this out! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The title of this article is completely inappropriate. Sign Stealing is not against the rules and the title demonstrates a bias in favor of the Astros. The title should be "Houston Astros 2017-2019 Cheating Scandal" or similar. Someone who can edit the locked article please address this. Friendlyediting (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion violates WP:NPOV, so I wouldn't count on that happening. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 00:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The sign stealing is the predominant component, right?--Duroq145 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"Cheating" is vague, while "sign stealing" provides more information on what actually happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is there going to be a scandal about something that is completely legal. The scandal is that they cheated not that they stole signs. Fix this! Friendlyediting (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Downplaying the nature of the scandal to make it sound like the conduct was legal violates WP-NPOV Friendlyediting (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No one is downplaying anything. Just because we don't name the article "Terrible Astros who cheated like jerks catastrophe from 2017-2019" doesn't mean we are biased or love the Astros. Perhaps we simply want to name the article something that is non-biased, describes the issue in detail, and is how most media outlets have referred to it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 03:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Their idea of neutrality is sugarcoating the facts--Duroq145 (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep the title "Houston Astros sign stealing scandal", per Muboshgu.  Friendlyediting's title, even with the year numbers, is less identifiable than the existing title: Ten years from now it won't be so easy to remember what particular cheating a particular team was involved in at a particular time; but if the title says "sign stealing", far more people will recall which scandal that was.  (And feeling like you have to add years to an article title is another sign that maybe the article title isn't specific enough on its own.)  We don't change every sex scandal article to have the specific words "adultery scandal" or "fornication scandal" in the title just because some sex is legal; we don't need to do it with other scandals either.  (Also, even the sign stealing article says that sign stealing is only even tolerated in the most straightforward and simple situations.  "Completely" legal is the sort of exaggeration that one uses for things that are questionable to begin with.  I'd love to know what special kind of person would come across a Wikipedia page, named "sign stealing scandal", with 127 footnotes, and think to themselves, "Well, at least it was completely legal because the article name didn't say it wasn't!") --Closeapple (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to above, many news organizations have used this name in their reporting. We should use the common name where ever possible and this is no exception. --  LuK3  (Talk) 17:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are 6 things that determine if an article is immediately a failure in its quest to be a good article. 
These are: 

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
It contains copyright violations.
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.
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.
A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered.
We'll go back to number 1. 
The second one is that it cannot contain copyright violations, I assume, referring to media (photos and videos). After carefully checking every image on the page, I can truthfully say that all the images are not copyrighted. Included are images from Flickr that have Creative Common Licences, and images that were taken by the uploader themselves. 
The third barrier is that if it has any cleanup barriers. As of April 13 UTC, there are no cleanup banners on this page. 
The fourth barrier is that it cannot have any edit wars on this page. Checking the history of the page, edits are constantly stable and edits occur a few times a month, on average. 
The last barrier is that issues from previous Good Article nominations have had to be adequately considered. There are no known instances of this article being nominated before. 
As I said, I will come back to barrier 1. 
The six good article criteria are as listed: 

Well written:the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. 

Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Let's go through them one by one. 
The first necessity is that it has to be concise and well-written. After reading the entire article, I can definitely tell that this article would be understandable to non-baseball fans, and of course, it is understandable to baseball fans. 
The second necessity is that it has to have no original research, and all references must be reliable. There is no original research in this, and the references are from reliable news websites such as Wall Street Journal, AP, ESPN, The Athletic, NBC Sports, and from reliable baseball statistics websites such as Baseball-Reference.com. 
The third necessity is that it has to be broad in its coverage, addressing all the main and important topics. The three important "sections", background, incident, and aftermath are all highly detailed, with the aftermath being the most, including MLB Office investigations, and even fan polls results. 
The fourth necessity is that it has to be neutral. This is a sensitive topic, non-Astros fans may vandalise or troll this page because of they feel what the Astros did was not right. This is why this page is semi-protected. I read no signs of any slightest bias, and I found no evidence of an editor making his or her opinion, instead, quotes were taken from players and personnel related to this topic, highlighting their opinions. 
The fifth necessity is that it needs to be stable, and as explained before, the article is highly stable and I doubt there will be any edit wars in the future as the article will most likely stay semi-protected. 
The sixth and last necessity is that all media needs to have copyright statuses and captions relevant. All images show players or items related to these scandals, and the copyright statuses are listed. Captions are also fairly relevant. 

This is my improved review that is more specific to the text. 
Introduction:  

In paragraph 2, line three, change  "such as that of banging on a trash can", to, "such as the banging of a trash can".
Sentence changed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 3, line 1, change "for failing to prevent the rules violations" to, "for failing to prevent the rule violations".
Sentence changed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 3, line 3, change " MLB's investigation also determined that Boston Red Sox manager Alex Cora helped mastermind the Astros' sign stealing while serving as Hinch's bench coach in 2017;" by replacing the semicolon with a period.
Sentence split. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 3, line 3, change "; Boston and Cora mutually parted ways" to, "the Red Sox and Cora mutually parted ways".
Changed to "Red Sox". --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback for Background

In paragraph 5, line 3,  change " They defeated the New York Yankees in the 2017 AL Championship Series in seven games, winning all four home games at Minute Maid Park while losing all three road games at Yankee Stadium.", to "They then went on the defeat the New York Yankees in the 2017 AL Championship Series in seven games, proceeding to the World Series."
I think leaving the record at each stadium is relevant to the article because it does highlight the advantage of the sign-stealing at Minute Maid Park. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Speculation and accusations of sign stealing:

In paragraph 6, line 2, change "Astro Carlos Correa expressed surprise" to, "Astros player Carlos Correa expressed surprise".
Changed it to "Astros shortstop Carlos Correa". --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 6, line 3, change "and Alex Bregman and George Springer declined to comment" to, "while Alex Bregman and George Springer declined to comment".
Fixed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
MLB investigation report and discipline:

In paragraph 1, line 2, change "In December, Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated reported" to, "In December 2019, Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated reported".
Added year. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 1, line 2, change "and MLB investigators were combing through" to, "and that MLB investigators were combing through".
Changed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 5, line 2, change "there was "no justification for Hinch's failure to act" to, "and that there was "no justification for Hinch's failure to act".
Changed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 6, lines 1 - 2, change "In his report Manfred" to "In his report, Manfred".
Comma added. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 6, line 3, change "If Luhnow and Hinch were to commit further "material violations" of baseball rules, they will be permanently banned from baseball." to "In Luhnow and Hinch are to commit further "material violations" of baseball rules, they will be permanently banned from baseball."
Changed to "If Luhnow and Hinch committed further "material violations" of baseball rules, they will be permanently banned from baseball." --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 6, lines 3-4, change "Additionally, Luhnow will be required to undergo "management/leadership training" while he is suspended." to "Additionally, Luhnow was required to undergo "management/leadership training" while he was suspended."
Fixed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Continued accusations:

In paragraph 1, line 3, change "Altuve released a statement through his agent" to "Jose Altuve released a statement through his agent".
Full name added. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 1, lines 4 -5, change " Reddick called internet speculation that he was wearing a buzzing device "ridiculous", and Bregman called the buzzer rumors "stupid"." to "Josh Reddick called internet speculation that he was wearing a buzzing device "ridiculous", and Alex Bregman called the buzzer rumors "stupid"."
Full names added. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Reactions;  Astros reactions:

In paragraph 9, why is Cody Bellinger, a Dodgers player included in Astros Reactions? Move him to MLB.
I believe the Bellinger paragraph is in that section is the reaction from Carlos Correa. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
In paragraph 9, line 1, change "Dodger Cody Bellinger" to "Dodgers player Cody Bellinger".
Full name added. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Reactions; Public reactions:

In paragraph 3, line 1, change "are not scheduled to play the Dodgers in 2020" to "were not scheduled to play the Dodgers in 2020".
Tense changed. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Impact:
Delete that last two sentences in the third paragraph. Already mentioned before in the article

Unless I'm missing something, I do not see the rehiring of both Hinch and Cora being mentioned earlier in the article. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Houston Astros sign stealing scandal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: I'mInterestedInEverything (talk · contribs) 01:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'mInterestedInEverything, I have just cleaned up the formatting of this page, using pound symbols in place of the number so that the software can render the numbers nicely. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/templates, which has a number of nicely premade templates for GA reviews :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I'mInterestedInEverything, thank you for offering to review the article. While I appreciate your willingness to review the article, I do have some hesitations with your review. In my opinion, the review does not go into great detail with the content. While good articles are not held to the same standard of featured articles, they should represent some of the best content Wikipedia has to offer. For example, both Talk:Major League Baseball/GA3 and Talk:Willie Mays/GA1 go into great detail regarding citations, grammar, and organization. You can use those GA reviews to help you with this review. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates also have some handy templates to help you organize your thoughts based on the GA criteria. Please either ping me on this page or leave me a message on my talk page if you need help. You can also request a second opinion on the review by following the instructions at WP:GAN/I#2O. Thank you. --  LuK3  (Talk) 01:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
LuK3, Thanks  for the feedback LuK3. I am neccesarily new to Wikipedia, but I agree, my review isn't specific enough. I will try to edit this review, I guess. Thanks again! I'mInterestedInEverything (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'mInterestedInEverything just following up to see how your review is going. --  LuK3  (Talk) 12:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'mInterestedInEverything I should be getting to the review sometime this weekend. --  LuK3  (Talk) 11:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek, Thanks for cleaning it up! I'mInterestedInEverything (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'mInterestedInEverything I believed I addressed all of your comments above. There were a few points I made but I implemented a majority of your changes. Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions. --  LuK3  (Talk) 18:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
LuK3 It seems like the article is clear and concise and everything passes. I will be passing this article.

I feel that the title of the article would be better served if it included the year of the event. For example 2017-18 Houston Astros sign stealing scandal. Thoughts on including the year? Mannysoloway (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A little late on this reply but I think keeping the current title would be best. Having the years in the title implies the scandal only lasted two years which I don't think is correct due to the continued aftermath. --  LuK3  (Talk) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a small section, listing four Astros' hitters who, it has been reported in numerous places, were opposed to the cheating their team engaged in at the time. This is highly relevant, as all four are BLPs (each has his oen Wikipedia article) who should not be falsely thought of as being among the guilty. Someone keeps removing the section, for no obvious reason. I strongly maintain that this section is extremely important and should remain.
Matza Pizza (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's important, then try to incorporate it elsewhere in the article, not in its own dedicated section. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 12:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
From a quick glance at the article I see that Kemp's refusal is already documented in Houston Astros sign stealing scandal#Astros reactions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)