Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Joe McGinnity, Joe Kelley, Cy Seymour, Dan McGann, Jack Cronin, 1902 Baltimore Orioles season

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Joe McGinnity, Joe Kelley, Cy Seymour, Dan McGann, Jack Cronin, 1902 Baltimore Orioles season edit

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Joe McGinnity with the New York Giants

Created/expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self nom at 01:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall
  • Hook is properly formatted.
  • Reading hooks and they all appeared to be supported by the articles and inline citations in the article. Some sourced to paywall/offline sources. AFG in this case.
  • QPQ not satisfied yet. --LauraHale (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Joe McGinnity
  • "Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (1807 days)" Start size: "2578 B (435 words)" "End size: 12 kB (1998 words) "readable prose size"" Five fold expansion would be 2,175 words. I'm willing to give an okay on this one.
  • Images have acceptable copyright.
  • Not fully supported by inline citation. Fact tags placed to show where.
  • I've read it over and I have not seen any thing I see as a major POV problem.
  • Plagiarism spot check: This I suspect will give some pause. I'm not sure how to reword the two major examples. No such concerns with this source.
Joe Kelley
  • Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 31 edits ago on March 23, 2012. Newness and timeliness checks out.
  • Images have acceptable copyright.
  • Article is fully supported by inline citations.
  • I've read it over and I have not seen any thing I see as a major POV problem.
  • Assume good faith that subscription and offline sources support text and are free of plagiarism.
  • No real problems with this spotcheck.
Cy Seymour
  • Newness and timeliness checks out.
  • Images have acceptable copyright.
  • Article is fully supported by inline citations.
  • I've read it over and I have not seen any thing I see as a major POV problem.
  • Assume good faith that subscription and offline sources support text and are free of plagiarism.
  • I suspect this may give one or two people pause but not sure how else some of the can be reworded. no issues with second source check.
Dan McGann
  • Newness and timeliness checks out.
  • Images have acceptable copyright.
  • Article is fully supported by inline citations.
  • I've read it over and I have not seen any thing I see as a major POV problem.
  • Assume good faith that subscription and offline sources support text and are free of plagiarism.
  • This may give some people pause, but not sure how to reword most with out changing the meaning.
Jack Cronin
  • Newness and timeliness checks out.
  • No images.
  • Article is fully supported by inline citations. It has a raw URL that needs fixing.
  • I've read it over and I have not seen any thing I see as a major POV problem.
  • Assume good faith that subscription and offline sources support text and are free of plagiarism.
  • This may give some people pause, but not sure how to reword most with out changing the meaning.
1902 Baltimore Orioles season
  • Newness and timeliness checks out.
  • Images have acceptable copyright.
  • Not fully supported by inline citation. Fact tags placed to show where.
  • I've read it over and I have not seen any thing I see as a major POV problem.
  • Assume good faith that subscription and offline sources support text and are free of plagiarism.
  • This may give some people pause, but not sure how to reword most with out changing the meaning. Ditto. --LauraHale (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

QPQ needs completing and fact tags need cleaning. --LauraHale (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I can report that I've dealt with the fact tags, added more to some of the articles, and rewritten some of the places where wording could give pause. All that's left is the QPQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And now QPQ is done. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

good to go with AGF that nominator will do to the QPQ. --LauraHale (talk)

  • I took a quick look at the comparisons between articles and sources. IMO, Joe McGinnity is still much too similar to this source, and Dan McGann is too similar to this source. The team article also has some minor close paraphrasing. The other player articles look OK. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll rewrite any close paraphrasing concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe I've sufficiently addressed these concerns. The duplicate detectors show a few quotes and other phrases that can't be rewritten any further. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The passages that bothered me seem to be fixed. Thanks! However, there was one short passage in the McGinnity article where I wanted to make some additional changes in wording, but I can't tell for sure what is factually correct. Did he and Christy Mathewson account for 73% of the Giants' wins in 1903 (as the SABR source indicates) or did they combine to win 73% of the games played (as the Wikipedia article states)? My guess is the former; 1903 in baseball indicates that the Giants won 60% of their games that year, making it impossible for two pitchers to have won 73% of the games played. --Orlady (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
All the other review issues appear to have been resolved, so I guess this is good to go! --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Great! But first, do you think this should be merged with Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Freedman, John Mahon (baseball) to make an eight-article hook, or should they go up separately? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
My personal preference would be to keep the two hooks separate. I'm no fan of stuffing large numbers of articles into a single DYK hook. When this is done, the hooks become overly convoluted and the articles get less attention at DYK than they would otherwise. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. I wasn't leaning one way or the other, just looking for an expert opinion. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Joe_McGinnity,_Joe_Kelley,_Cy_Seymour,_Dan_McGann,_Jack_Cronin,_1902_Baltimore_Orioles_season&oldid=1189652615"