Talk:Atlanta Braves

Article Size

The prose size of this article is 64kb which is getting a little too big. The most obvious area to summarize is the club's history. Some of what's included here could be moved to History of the Atlanta Braves. Seems like the biggest points to cover here would be origin, world championships, winning eras, and team moves? The general season by season stuff can be moved. Thoughts? Nemov (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The WP:RECENTISM on the past 20 or so seasons (especially the last 10) is prime for a trimming, with material shifted to the individual season articles if its not there already. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I summarized the last 30 years changes and the article is a bit more manageable (around 50kb). Nemov (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Uniforms for 2022 (& 2023)

The Braves are no longer wearing their cream alternative jerseys according to a report from May[1]. I see that @Silent Wind of Doom has updated the illustrations in the past, but at some point that needs to be updated on this article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• The Braves have also added this to the rotation for the 2023 season.[2] Nemov (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  All fixed. Sorry. Last year was a bit of a mess. The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC) (EDIT: Ahh... yes. The City Connect uniforms. They're very varied in use, and I'm watching on a case-to-case basis on what becomes a regular alternate and what doesn't. But I just got the league done as far as I've seen. CC additions should be coming in the next few weeks.)

  Awesome. Thanks so much. The Braves are wearing the CC jersey for every Saturday home game in 2023. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yup. There are sources for that if needed. It's probably one of the better CC uniforms, but I'm admittedly biased. BilCat (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, I even got the cap the day they went on sale. The Saturday home rotation is mentioned in the uniform section. Nemov (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article

I would like to get this article to WP:GA. I haven't done that before, but this article is a good candidate for it. A lot of the history section is unsourced so some work will need to be done to get that right, but any help or tips would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Getting an article adequately sourced is often the main milestone for GA and A-class articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added some citations to the history section, but I think I'll go through an summarize all the way through first. Finding sources in the newspaper archives shouldn't be to difficult. It'll take some time, but if that section is well sourced it should be pretty close. Nemov (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Best of luck. I recommend looking at other relevant GAs to model off of. New York Yankees is GA, not sure if any of the other 28 franchises are. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I've been looking at that article as a good starting point. Nemov (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• The sourcing looks good now through the Boston era. The Atlanta history probably should be summarized in a similar fashion so it resembles the rest of the article. That's the next step. After that the sourcing looks solid for the article. Nemov (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• So I think the sourcing is there. I would welcome a second pair of eyes before making a request for good article status. The images in the article appear good from a copyright standpoint. Am I missing anything? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Attendance

Does this belong in the article? I just updated for 2023, but I'm wondering if it would be better placed at Truist Park. At the very least, the Turner Field numbers can be removed. I'm removing the Turner Field stuff for now, but will move the other if there's not objection. Nemov (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not in a table but notable attendance numbers could be worked in History section, such as major increases or decreases. Just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A separate Milwaukee Braves article

Please see the WikiProject Baseball talk page for discussion involving the creation of a separate Milwaukee Braves article. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 16:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Atlanta Braves/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Nemov (talk · contribs) 16:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is high time someone took this on. It has been in the queue for an embarrisingly long time. I'll lay some of the groundwork today. Start in earnest tomorrow and hopefully we can get it passed before the end of the year. (I'm away from Monday to Thursday for Christmas, and won't be able to work on it in this period). SSSB (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Earwigs copivio check highlights no concerns. SSSB (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• All images appear appropriate and no issues are appatent visavis copyright. SSSB (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Can't access all the sources (books etc.), but am assuming good faith as the sources I have accessed all seem in good order and all seem to verify the content they are next to. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

1871–1913

• Seele, Duffy, McCarthy, and "Slidin'" Billy Hamilton are not mentioned in the sources in this paragraph. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Added citations 20 and 22 that covers those names. Nemov (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

   Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• " and losing 100 games five times." it needs to be clarified that you are talking about losing 100 games in a season. This wasn't immediatly clear. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Nemov (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

   Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• This entire sentence: "The team struggled, having only one winning season from 1900 to 1913 and losing 100 games five times. In 1907, they temporarily dropped the red color from their stockings due to infection concerns." is uncited, unless I missed something. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Added a source for the infection claim. I summarized the clunky sentence. Just stating the team struggled between those years should suffice. Nemov (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

   Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

1914: Miracle

• I can't access the two sources at the end of the opening sentence in the section. A google search indicats that the two claims in this sentence are accurate and I am therefore willing to assume good faith with these. SSSB (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

1915–1953

• This header should probably be 1915–1952. I know they didn't actually move until March 1953, but the entire 1953 season was in Milwaukee and the parent header does read "Boston (1871–1952)".

Updated. I've got a bunch of family coming in today and my time to edit will likely be limited until the 7th, but I'll do what I can. Thanks for your time. Nemov (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. I'm quite liberal with how much time I'm willing to leave a review on hold for. SSSB (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Milwaukee (1953–1965)

• "...with the Los Angeles Dodgers, which defeated..." should be "who defeated". SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Nemov (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

   Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ted Turner era

• This heading should probably be Ted Turner and Time Warner eras as this section runs upto 2004, turner only owned it upto '96. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Updated heading. Nemov (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

   Done SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

World Series championships

• The source in this section technically only verifies that they were the only franchise to win in 4 season in 1995. It doesn't verify that another team hasn't matched this achievement since. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how to source this since no other franchise has done it since it was accomplished in 1995. Nemov (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  [This source https://www.espn.com/mlb/worldseries/history/winners] where you can see that the Braves are the only team to appear with three cities? SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I thought you wanted a source that actually mentioned it specifically. I have added this source. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  You added the citation in the lead. I have WP:BOLDly added it in the World Series Championships section of the article too. SSSB (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Ballparks

• This section only focusses on their current ball parks. I think that former ball parks should be mentioned here too. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  The older parks are mentioned here, Do you mean you think the should be removed and placed into a "Former Parks" section? A section devoted to the old parks could be placed just below the current parks. Nemov (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  The older parks from Atlanta are listed here. However, I don't see info here about their Milwaukee ball park. The Boston ball parks are already mentioned in that part of the history section, but they may benefit from a bried remention, for the sake of completeness. SSSB (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I flushed out this section with some details about each stadium. Created separate sections for former/current ballparks. Nemov (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Y SSSB (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

New York Mets

• This section would benefit with a breif mention of the all time win lose record against each other, as well as some other comparitive stats (which team has the most world series, or pennants, for example). SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Added the regular season and playoff head-to-head records and details about postseason accomplishments. Nemov (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Y SSSB (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Tomahawk chop

• This sentence "The use of foam tomahawks drew criticism from Native American groups, deeming it demeaning." reads badly because of how similar deeming and demeaning sound. Please rephrase. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I rephrased this sentence. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Y SSSB (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Achievements

• The awards and team records sections should breifly mentioned some of the more notable awards, and records. Or, in the case of awards, if it highlights how many times a Braves player has won the MVP, as an example. Just to provide a little context. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Added a small section on the major awards and highlighted a player from each who won the award multiple times. Nemov (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Y SSSB (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Retired numbers

• I would put that Robinson's number is an all MLB retired number in its own sentence for clarity. Because right now the sentence runs on so long it is difficult to understand what you mean. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  That entire section was tough to read. I've rephrased it so it should be easier to read. Nemov (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Y SSSB (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Final comments

• It is looking good. Just some minor issues to address. I looked at a variety of sources, and the ones I looked at, and could access, all look good. So no issues there. I will place on hold to allow you to make the necessary changes. SSSB (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  @SSSB I believe everything has been addressed. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Nemov, looks good. I am happy to promote to good article status. Congratulations! SSSB (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Short Description Location

Team locations in short descriptions have always been written as the city they’re located and based in. For example the Texas Rangers aren’t listed as based in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, but in Arlington, Texas, in their short description. The same goes for the Tampa Bay Rays. So the Braves short description should read “based in Cumberland, Georgia” to be uniform with the other 29 MLB teams. 2600:1005:B0AA:1317:D435:3CA7:570A:47BF (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Arlington is a city as is St. Pete, FL. Cumberland is an unincorporated community that's in Cobb County. These scenarios are not comparable. There isn't a policy that I'm aware of that says this article has to follow those two articles. The stable lead sentence says the team is based in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The short description should match. I'm fine if there's a consensus to state otherwise. Nemov (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not the exact same as a municipality but it’s still a fair comparison. I’m not talking about following those two articles specifically, but following the same consistency that they and all the other MLB teams do: having their location in the short description. And to your last point if that’s the case, then the Rays and Rangers are violating the short description as well because of the lead sentences in their articles. All 30 teams should all have the same format. Otherwise change the other articles’ short descriptions. 2601:C2:1:6ABE:30A7:540:71AD:E2B6 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)