Comments from Cool3 (talk · contribs)
- Comment. Is "at" outfield really the proper title? I realize it's consistent with the other positions, but outfield isn't a position per se (but rather divided into right field, etc.). Should it perhaps be named "from the outfield" or "in the outfield"? If "at" is really the common/correct usage, then it's fine.
- "At" isn't the common usage, but I am of the impression that moving the list to an format inconsistent with the others would be a problem when this goes to WP:FT. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you considered changing all of them to another format so that outfield fits? For example "List of Silver Slugger-winning outfielders (shortstops, first basemen, etc.)" or something like that? I'm not saying you have to, but it's something to think about. Cool3 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't be consistent with the naming conventions for stand-alone lists. I have seen the lists of Naval Academy graduates go through in that format, but I really don't like the way it looks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "These voters consider several offensive categories in selecting the winners, including batting average, slugging percentage, and on-base percentage, in addition to "coaches' and managers' general impressions of a player's overall offensive value"." is a rather long and convoluted sentence. Perhaps break it in two? (not vital, but I think it would make for better flow)
- I don't see that it's convoluted; it's an independent clause ending with a prepositional phrase containing a direct quote, and there is a descriptive phrase inserted in the middle. It reads fine to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The part that read poorly to me was in addition to "managers' and coaches' general impressions of a player's overall offensive ability." In particular "managers' and coaches'" made it rather clunky, so I've taken the liberty of removing that. I think it flows better now and is just as clear. Cool3 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the prize is presented to outfielders irrespective of their specific position." Is it a prize? It seems award would perhaps be the more appropriate term?
- Avoiding repetition of the same words over and over. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "All of his awards were won in the National League." Why the passive voice here?
- "Ken Griffey, Jr., Vladimir Guerrero, and Tony Gwynn have each won seven Silver Sluggers in the outfield; Juan González, Kirby Puckett, and Sammy Sosa have won six times. Two players have won five times (Albert Belle and Dave Winfield), and four-time winners include Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, and Gary Sheffield." There's an odd shift in style here. All of these take the same form "X has won..." except the last one "four-time winners include". Why not say "Four players have won the award four times..." or something similar? I believe it would flow much better. Same for three-time winners, etc.
- Again, avoiding repetition. I know there's repetition in there already, but I was getting tired of writing "X has won" over and over... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if there was a smoother transition from paragraph three to paragraph 4 of the lead.
- Probably would be nice, but this is the same format used for all of the other lists, and I honestly have no desire to go back and re-write every single lead in the topic to add a transition that's difficult to find. Both sections talk about leaders, so I think it flows all right. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than it looks great. Good job, and wow that's a lot of references. Cool3 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken the liberty of slightly rewriting the beginning. In my opinion, it flows better now, but of course if I've made any changes that are incorrect, feel free to change them back. Also, one last point of clarification: "The award is a silver bat trophy, 3 feet (91 cm) tall, engraved with the names of each of the winners from the league." Is the trophy made out of silver (i.e., the metal) or painted silver? Cool3 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is silver metal, but the source doesn't clarify. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add: I did change some of your edits back. We had a little outbreak of semicolon fever in the middle (which I'm guilty of from time to time), which I fixed; and I fixed a capitalization error. I did restore part of the quote in ¶1, but that's for consistency's sake. If others editors concur that this part should be removed, I'll go back and trim it from the other six lists as well. The phrase added in ¶4 is made explicit in the table, so I trimmed that too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Semicolon fever" good phrase. I think it would be quite useful to know if it's silver metal or just silver color though. I'll try to find a source myself. Cool3 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in fact a bat plated with sterling silver. See [2]. I'll add that in. Cool3 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I fixed the ref formatting and transplanted it to the rest of the articles in the series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, moving to support.
|