Talk:Box score (baseball)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Box score (baseball) is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Baseball:
|
|||
If I offended the author this piece I apologize, but the article's tone was way too familiar. I de-personalized all of it and put some organization into the explanation. The explanations did not always match up to the order of the box score used. I would have chosen a regular season game since the oft-repeated explanations of "this series" are distracting and non-pertinent. but since it's the one chosen I went with the program (in all fairness, though, most notable games are post-season and the box score I used to often see as an example was Don Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series). --Buckboard 04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the author, and surprise surprise, I don't like the new version. :) That's okay, though. I'd like to see fewer parenthetical expressions--the parenthetical text needs to be incorporated into the actual article. What do you mean by "familiar"? I'd like to see the Wikipedia principle or policy that wasn't followed with the original article. I'll wait to make any more changes. --Locarno 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't matter much what game is used. I picked this one because it had a little of everything--unlike Larsen's game, which had a lot of nothing ;). Also, it is pertinent to show what a postseason boxscore looks like; understanding this, a reader would be able to read a regular-season boxscore just fine (although vice-versa wouldn't work). --Locarno 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree about the parentheticals, but I did this because the italics just don't show well and bold-print seemed a bit too much. There wasn't anything wrong with the tone as far as an explanation goes, but by "familiar" I meant phrases such as "in our example"--just not my concept of encyclopedic objectivity (however, I confess to a bias when it comes to baseball since I have a fondness for the game that weathers all of the phases the game has gone through--commercialization, profit-sharing, free agency, steroids etc.). The best explanation I have is that I depersonalized it--took you, we, our etc. out of it. BTW, the more I look at it, the more I like the example. It does offer pretty much everything by way of explanation.--Buckboard 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
