Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning[edit]

List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly and now meets all 6 FL criteria. Bloom6132 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Added "Rules" as per the official rules PDF. Unfortunately, this does sound a bit redundant ("Under Rules...of the Official Rules…). —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rulebook lists it as capitalized, but it's standalone there (i.e. not in a sentence). So I'm not sure. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Solid article, good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • What is meant to be sourcing "Eighteen of these players (including nine active pitchers) have played for only one major league team."? I don't see that in the reference for the sentence after this one.
  • But without using the profiles as sources here, we have no way of proving that the statistic is accurate. It's also something that can quickly become outdated as players change teams. I'd recommend adding references to those player pages, or at a minimum a note saying that the statistic comes from Baseball-Reference profiles. I've seen a couple of soccer lists use such notes, and have considered them sufficient. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added footnote, but utilized Baseball Almanac instead of BR, since the former is the general ref at the bottom. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players: In the Innings column, the "in one inning" is quite redundant since it says "The inning in" at the start of the note.
  • In the table: Wilson Alvarez isn't sorting properly because of the diacritics in his name. You'll need a sort template to get him sorting in the right order (he should be first). Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - great list, great prose, my only qualm would be that the picture of A.J. Burnett has a shadow over his face, and consequently it is kind of hard to see, but looking at Commons, it is clearly the best option. Great job! Go Phightins! 21:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. Yeah, I too would've preferred getting another pic of Burnett, preferably in a Yankees or Marlins uniform (the two teams he was on when he accomplished the feat). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • " no player has ever struck out more than four batters in an inning." is this referenced?
  • Perhaps I missed it that time round. I see no issue with directly citing this, especially now I've done that "challenge the unreferenced claim" thing (albeit inadvertently). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why I never use direct citations my previous FLs is because there actually isn't any source (not even the Baseball Almanac general ref) that specifically states facts like this one. The absence of a fifth batter (or third grand slam, 21st strikeout, fourth batter on twelfth pitch, etc.) implicitly supports the statement. Also, given that this is the lead, I don't think an inline source is necessary or relevant here, as this sentence is supported by the table's boxscores and refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the 26 players eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame who have struck out four batters in an inning, four have been elected and two were elected" WP:MOSNUM - for comparable items, use either all numbers or all words.
  • "leave 22 players ineligible who are active, 4 who are living" -> "make 22 active players ineligible, four of whom are alive and..."
  • "who did not play in ten major league seasons" a couple of sentences back you said "10 major league seasons"...
  • Box is actually a Reference to the box isn't it? This is confusing for non-expert readers.
  • Where are "active" players referenced?
  • I have no real interest in discussing this with another reviewer, I'm just saying I can't see where the active players are referenced. Perhaps a note to the effect that the active players are referenced by a general ref would be of service to our readers. After all, it's them we should be concerned with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher of ref 12 appears to be "National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum".
  • Removed category and added another one. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Dagger (†) is probably a bad choice to mark hall of fame members. It's traditionally used to indicate deceased, due to its resemblance to a cross. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's not that ideal – it was once discussed here. What it boils down to is consistency – daggers have been utilized in almost all baseball FLs. The reason for it is that the asterisk (which is only utilized in older, non-updated FLs) carries an especially negative connotation in the baseball world. It was first popularized during the M&M Boys quest to break Ruth's single-season HR record, and now it's been used for the stats of players suspected of taking performance-enhancing drugs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't, say, the Pilcrow ({{Pilcrow}}) be used? or maybe an asterism (⁂)? It'd be much less ambiguous. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a dagger is still the most preferable. An asterism might not be accessible to some screen readers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I've made an accessible asterism template, Template:Asterism, to match Template:Dagger et al. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a related subject, should the ring (°) have an accessible template, or is that handled by screen readers? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either the degree (º) or section (§) symbols are cover by screen readers (basically any symbol that's not in image form). But that's an unfortunate limitation of not having enough symbols in graphics rather than text. That's why I'm still not keen on eliminating the dagger. It is (in my opinion at least) more aesthetically compatible, especially given that the active players symbol (double-dagger) compliment the HOF'ers symbol. Even TRM said the dagger is "fine here" and my thought is to leave well enough alone. But if you insist on an asterism, I'll discuss this with the baseball community first before making any changes. We've been using daggers for HOF players in all lists (even ones without the mustard colour), so this change will have to be discussed and approved of first. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One other issue. The last sentence of the paragraph of the lead is uncited. Shouldn't it be? Or is all that information in the article? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All covered in the general ref at the bottom. Readers can skim through each of the Baseball Almanac bios if they wanted to in order to confirm the statement. This has been done for all my previous 9 baseball FLs (all less than a year old) and has been accepted every time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. if we sort out the ° accessibility, I'll support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And no, it doesn't look like º or § will be sorted out (unless someone can find a way to turn them into graphics). However, this issue has been overlooked in the past, since reviewers understood the limited number of symbols in graphics, and that I did correct the ones that I could (i.e. † and ‡). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, if you want. It's not too hard. What should they be called? Ring and Section sign?
Also, would it be worth changing the alt on the symbols, e.g. {{Asterism|alt=Hall of Famer}}, which gives ⁂?Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Degree symbol and section sign. And thanks for your help! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for my opinion on the asterism, read the long paragraph (a.k.a. "rant") above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks good. Orval Overall, that's a quality name :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_pitchers_who_have_struck_out_four_batters_in_one_inning/archive1&oldid=1078528523"