Wikipedia:Peer review/Climax Series/archive1

Climax Series

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems like it could have a chance for FAC sometime soon, but I really need a few more eyes to look at it before I send it on Now I'm basically looking for any general copy edit suggestions, format suggestions or possible content additions that would help it pass a FAC.

Thanks, --Torsodog^Talk 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• The article only has one source, The Japan Times. Are there no other newspapers, periodicals etc that have articles or information on this series?

• Unfortunately, not that I know of. Reliable English-language articles/information concerning Japanese baseball are very limited. The Japan Times is by far the most reliable. The rest are generally blogs.

• The purpose of the "See also" link is unclear

• It points users to the article about the MLB equivalent of the Climax Series. Are you saying that this isn't clear or that it isn't useful?

• There seems to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the lead section, which is to provide an overview or summary of the article. This lead is largely an account of the history of the playoff system and is replicated in the History section given later. I recommend that you replace the first paragraph of the lead with a summary paragraph along the following lines, and leave the detailed history for the History section:-

The Climax Series (クライマックスシリーズ, Kuraimakkusu Shirīzu?) is the current annual playoff system employed by Japan's Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB). It determines which sides, from the Central League (CL) and the Pacific League (PL) respectively, will compete in the Japan Series, the winners of which are the national champions. Since NPB's two-league system was created in 1950 the leagues have used several different methods to determine entry to the Japan Series; the current system has been in use since 2007.

• The remainder of the lead should summarise the content of the rest of the article.

• Comments about the lead are all true. I will work in your paragraph and make changes as necessary. Thanks for the write-up.

• Results section: Is it the intention to maintain this section, i.e. to add results year by year? This will change the focus of the article, from being about the playoff system and how it works to a list of results. But will anyone have the patience, and the interest, to update the results year after year? Otherwise, it might be better to leave them out.

• I'd be willing to update yearly, though the eventual goal is to simply break the section out into its own, standalone list when a few more years pass.

• Prose: the general quality of the prose is quite poor; I had difficulty in understanding much of the aticle, though with an effort I was able to work it out. I don't ave time for a copyedit, but I strongly recommend that you find someone with good prose credentials to go through the entire article.

• Honestly, I'm pretty surprised that you think the prose is "poor". It isn't amazing, to be sure, but I feel that it is very concise and direct. Perhaps that is part of the problem? This article is rather technical and dense when it comes to yearly format changes, and that might make it hard for non-baseball enthusiasts to follow it. Or I don't know what I'm talking about and the prose is indeed poor. Either way, hopefully a copy editor will be able to fix the problem. Thanks for the review. If you get any extra time in the near future, feel free to stop by and do a quick copy edit if you feel up for it! --Torsodog^Talk 14:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)