Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jim Thome/archive2

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jim Thome edit

Jim Thome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Go Phightins! 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thome was my favorite player growing up watching baseball, and about 18 months ago, I was determined that he was going to have a fantastic Wikipedia article. Three months later, it finally achieved good article status. Last July, I nominated it for featured status, and its first nomination failed. Since then, I have sought feedback not only from the two editors who reviewed it at the first nomination, but from a few other baseball editors, and I feel it is much improved. As such, I hereby nominate it for FAC2. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful feedback. Go Phightins! 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Go Phightins!. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Player profile: "He is one of few players whose prime was during the steroid era and was never to have been accused of using steroids". The first part of the sentence doesn't work with the second, when the sentence is read as a whole. Would removing "and was" help?
  • Offense: The "47.6% of his career plate appearance have resulted in..." bit needs to be updated to past tense because Thome has retired.
  • Playing characteristics: I see a few other things here that should be moved to past tense, like "His batting stance features him pointing his bat to center field prior to the pitch."
  • Personality: Same might go for the annual high school visits and autographs. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Go Phightins! 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I reviewed this article before it came to FAC, and would prefer to wait for a few other commentators before chipping in fully here. Just one thing that I noticed while re-reading, there seem to be an awful lot of sentences, particularly in the lead and first sections, which begin with conjunctions; "after" seems particularly over-used. Might be worth going through and pruning a few of these to give some more variety. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good observation, Sarastro1, and one I had not noticed. I did try to vary them a little bit. Thanks for bringing that up. Go Phightins! 19:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to make a quick comment - the Player Profile section seems a little scatter-shot at the moment. The first sentence establishes he was a power hitter but then goes into how often he was injured before talking about his career WAR and role in the steroid era. It isn't until the subsequent subsections that detail is offered about offense, defense, etc. Perhaps it would be best to scrap the opening paragraph for parts and move the sentences into the subsections that fit best? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ambivalent; on one hand, you are right that the opening paragraph does not go into much detail, but I looked at it as a "glorified lead" of the subsequent subsections ... perhaps it could just mention that he was confined to DHing as he aged, he vehemently denies using PEDs, and he is an HOF candidate, and save the specific offense/defense stuff for the subsections, and remove the WAR altogether? Go Phightins! 16:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any lead paragraph is necessary in the Player profile section. Just start right away with the Offense subsection. Move the injuries info to Defense to give perspective on how it forced him to become DH. If you want, maybe create a Career Perspective subsection to put the steroid era and WAR info - that seems less vital to me but would be perfectly fine to keep. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked per your suggestion. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review: Spotchecks not yet done. All the images are appropriately licensed and are properly used. Here are some source issues I found:

  • Not a fan of how the IMDB ref is being used (#5) especially since I'm sure it can just be replaced with one of the many sources already used.
  • Add Fangraphs as publisher for ref #46
  • The Sports Illustrated ref (#48) is missing a title and possibly author. Was it lost in an edit somewhere? Seems like an odd thing to be missing.
  • Not sure how the Dodgers active roster (#59) would work as a ref given it'd just be the current dynamic one. There's already another ref used in the sentence that one's being used in so it can just be removed.

Wizardman 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. Not sure what happened with the Sports Illustrated thing. Fixed. Go Phightins! 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Newyorkadam:

  • Please add Alternative Text for all images.
  • Yay, no dead links.
  • Might go over prose later, depends on how busy I am :-) -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Added alt text. Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a sufficient recurring theme of his philanthropic endeavors, as well as "good guy" personality, throughout the article that a separate section dedicated to philanthropic endeavors is unnecessary. Any other thoughts?
  • Maybe not an entire section, but I personally think a few sentences with references to articles about his activity with charities would improve the article. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
  • Maybe link to his old official website (archived) in the External links section? -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
  • I don't really think it is necessary to link to his old website ... meh. It's not in use, and looking at it, not that relevant. Go Phightins! 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EricEnfermero Good job, GP. Standard disclaimer that I am an FA newbie.

  • Early life: In Texas we say snuck all the time, but I think sneaked may be safer.
  • Minor leagues: Is "hitting guru" a direct quote from Thome?
  • 1991-1997: Not sure you need to specify that he got his first hit in his debut if you specify that he went 2-for-4.
  • Preceding the 1996 season... I think you can take out previously from this sentence.
  • 1998-2002: his hometown Peoria - I think a comma or "of" belongs before Peoria.
  • 2006-2009: Is White Sox's the common way to make this a possessive?
  • Second stint with Cleveland: $20,000 seems like a very low cash total one year removed from 25 HR. You mentioned he had become a DH and that he had a no-trade clause. Is there a source you can use to confirm if that was why he was traded for chump change?
  • Post-playing career: I realize this is a recent development, but it seems like such a short section. Maybe this source could help fill it out at least a little?
  • Offense: Throughout his career, Thome has been considered... I think it's okay to change this to "was considered".
  • Personality: Though Thome used a similar phrase, I'm not sure about "exercise in humility" - I usually think of that as a humiliating experience.
  • Career legacy: You mention his future HOF candidacy here and also in the Post-playing career section.

EricEnfermero HOWDY! 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed. As for the White Sox' vs. White Sox's, I don't know, so I just changed it to Chicago's. I also sought to add some context to what you were confused about with the $20,000 ... you weren't the only one :-) Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Coemgenus
  • "Although he had hoped to draw the attention of scouts, his relatively small stature, 6 feet 2 inches (188 cm) and 175 pounds (79 kg), meant that he attracted only passing interest..." This seems surprising. Do you have a source for this? The citation at the end of the sentence only supports the last clause of the sentence.
  • "Thome later said, "[Manuel] saw something in me I didn't."' On my monitor, the quotation mark in this sentence is on one line and the [Manuel] is on the next. I don't know how to make them stay together, but if you or anyone does, it would look better.
  • "Despite Thome's statistical improvement in 1994, it was not until 1995 that the Indians' success led to a playoff berth." I'm not sure one part of this sentence has to do with the other. The team could've been the best in baseball history and still not made the playoffs in 1994, since there were no playoffs that year.
  • "Thome waived his no-trade clause because he thought the Dodgers could reach the World Series, something he had never done during his career..." He played in two World Series, 1995 and 1997. Do you mean to say he thought the Dodgers could win a World Series?
  • Post-playing career: Is there any news of him since he started working for the White Sox? Any rumors of managerial prospects?
  • Other than these quibbles, it looks like an excellent article to me. Good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The final three are addressed; as for the first two: I don't know what to say with the second one - on my monitor, the quote appears in the middle of a line, but I agree that if the bracket was split from the opening quote, that would be aggravating. On the first, I know I ready something that said that relatively explicitly, and I added another reference to an already used citation that implies the context, but if that is not enough, I will remove it ... can't remember where I specifically read that. Thanks for your comments, Coemgenus! Go Phightins! 01:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. If anyone can figure out how to fix that typographical problem, it would be great, but it's not a problem that should keep this from being FA. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've commented on this article now a few times, and have done a little copy-editing. It is vastly improved since it came to FAC first time around, and the nominator deserves great credit for his hard work and determination. I think this meets the criteria now. The prose feels like it could still be tightened up in places, but I suspect that may be partly because of ENGVAR things which jar a little to my ear, but are not a problem as such (although "tendency to fly under the radar" could be reworded to be more encyclopaedic). It seems fairly accessible to non-fans, and is certainly comprehensive (although I'll leave it to baseball people to judge this one fully). I'd perhaps like a non-sports person to take a look and see if anything could be tightened, but in all honesty I can find little wrong now, and I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: To me, the article has shown steady improvement over a long period of time. It now reads easily, providing a comprehensive overview of Thome's life and career. While the language remains accessible to the non-fan, even the serious baseball fan would not be left wanting for significant information about the subject. On the typographical issue, would it be out of line to move the word Manuel outside of the quotes? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A general comment to reviewers and editors: What do you think of the images? I am not sold on the one in the infobox being the one in the infobox, but am unsure as to which image might be better. Thoughts? Go Phightins! 21:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with it myself, as it is a recent photo of his later playing career. I notice that the 1993 photo has lost some sharpness due to extreme cropping, but I don't see a great photo from his Cleveland days on Commons that could be used to replace it. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 20:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Go Phightins, I believe this would be your first successful FAC nom if promoted? That being the case I'd like to see an editor do a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If none of the reviewers above is able to volunteer, we'll list a request at WT:FAC.
  • Also you have several duplicate links in the article. This script highlights the dups, so pls review and see if any are really necessary.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplinks addressed, and yes, this would be my first FA, however I have done 15 successful GAs, and never had any issues with close paraphrasing, so unless I inherited some that I did not check when I started this article, I don't think there should be any issues. That said, someone is more than welcome to check. Go Phightins! 16:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to think it won't be fine, but it is a ritual we like to put people through when they're new to FAC (and even older hands every so often). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
  • In the Professional career section, when you are talking about a specific season for a team, you should link the team-season article rather than the franchise article. The franchise article is not the proper resource for that kind of content. E.G., he debuted with the 1991 Twins, a team that was a world series champion a few weeks later. You should also clarify if he was on the post season roster for the WS champs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow the text has him debuting for the Twins and then playing for the 1992 Indians (link needed) without any transaction detail. Very odd for a FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several other team-season links are needed in this context. Most season with the Indians seem to have enough text that the team season should also be linked with the text. Yes Doherty pitched for the Tigers, but it is the 1994 Tigers article that would have any hope of contextualizing Doherty's team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did some season linking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
You need to be careful. In [[1997 Cleveland Indians season|1997]], the Indians results in an WP:EASTEREGG. In 1997, [[1997 Cleveland Indians season|the Indians]] would be better. In other instances try to reword the text rather than pipe the YYYY numbers. (e.g. 1999 equally problematic). Seeing the number linked might lead the reader to think it is a MLB year or year in baseball article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are the links now? Go Phightins! 20:56, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Each season that is currently piped under the word season without either Cleveland or Indians remains an WP:EASTEREGG to be confused with MLB year or year in baseball. You need to be piping under either Cleveland or Indians, preferably the YYYY Indians or YYYY Cleveland team or season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not going to go through and change every paragraph to say, for example, Thome participated in Cleveland's 1995 season. At this point, I am inclined to unlink them all. Go Phightins! 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be no harder to do it without WP:EASTEREGG than the with them. Just wondering what MOS issue Secret is talking about below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Go Phigtins!, in fact your suggestion violates WP:MOS on dates and numbers. Secret account 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis does the suggestion violate MOS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, after leading two-games-to-none, Cleveland lost the series"- I can't remember if this was the 5-game or 7-game series era so clarify this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. The series page is linked, so anyone who is interested can click. Nevertheless, I clarified in context. Go Phightins! 20:56, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Undisclosed, I believe. So no, I don't have a number. Source says "generous, long-term contract from the Indians".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • "undisclosed generous" is O.K. with proper citation. Saying he turned down an offer leaves the reader wondering why you won't say what it is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article I initially read, indicated that you were an excellent writer. However this edit introduces one of the most awkward phrases I have ever heard and it verges on being ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you have a better way of phrasing it, more power to you, but that way was completely grammatically correct. I reverted for now. Go Phightins! 10:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN still not fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the third time in Thome's career that his team had opened a new stadium – the 1994 Cleveland Indians when they opened Jacobs Field and the 2004 Philadelphia Phillies when they opened Citizens Bank Park." We need some more WP:ICs for this. Shouldn't these prior occurrences be chronologically mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opportunity to reunite with former Cleveland teammates Manny Ramirez and Casey Blake" Was Thome friends with either of these players?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not specifically, to the best of my knowledge. The article just comments that the players were reunited from over a decade ago, which seems noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Citing "Thome hit his first home run with the Twins on April 8" with Baseball-Reference.com is not what is best. BR is regarded as a passable source in a pinch. However, many reviewers question the quality of the editorial process at BR and thus on a scale of 1 to 10, BR falls somewhere in the middle. BR should only be used as a source when more reliable sources are not available. I am sure you can find an Associated Press recap of this 2010 game on ESPN.com because I rely on ESPN regularly for my citations. I don't use MLB.com, but imagine they also have a citation for this fact. Both of those sources would be 10s on a RS scale. NYTimes.com may even have a recap of the game discussing this fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Reference is a reliable source by any standards, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Secret account 19:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have about 100-200 sports WP:GAs and a handful of sports WP:FAs. This is what I have been told in the past about Sports-reference (the parent company). I have been getting this type of feedback for years, starting with my Tyrone Wheatley FA review. I can't remember my more recent ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During that review, I was literally told to replace every possible sports-reference ref with a higher quality ref.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK - a few responses: that was six years ago, there was a contradiction even then, I have never seen anyone question Baseball-Reference, other than you, right now, and the root of your objection seems to be something from pro-football-reference six years ago, and even in that FAC, Sports Illustrated confirms its reliability, even to the satisfaction of the person who initially raised the objection. So why are you upset with it being used here? Go Phightins! 19:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember having to replace citations more than I remember the support from SI. I have gotten flak from using sports-reference.com in other reviews, but I can't recall which ones. Wheatley was the first. Keep in mind what the premise of WP:RS is. WP is suppose to summarize the reliable sources and those sources are deemed reliable based on the quality of their editorial process. BR seems to be a guy who puts together information from a lot of sources (see here). There is no real evidence of an editorial process. This is why people don't always like the various sports-reference resources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the names on the list. The work of Pete Palmer, the editor of Who's Who in Baseball, a published resource that is also cited in the article, is "the basis for the Lahman database, and he has provided data to this site". The original founder of the site has a PhD in applied math or something of that nature, and the site is part of the FOX Sports network. Unless you can find some specific objections, specific pieces of information that are incorrect on the site, or otherwise specifically impeach the credibility of the resource, please refrain from calling it "adequate" or otherwise deriding its usage, as it has been a cornerstone of the WP:BASEBALL editorial process for years, and has been deemed in that project one of the leading resources for information. Specific information to the contrary is welcome; vague references to FACs from six years ago from which you cannot remember specific circumstances are not. I will seek to address your linking concerns within the next few days. Go Phightins! 02:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BR is acceptable as a source for many types of facts and many WP:MLB articles cover pre-internet subjects, it has become "a cornerstone of the WP:BASEBALL". For many topics, there is just not an easily accessible source. If we were writing about Frank Robinson, I might not even mention a reliance on BR. I have done a few GAs on pre-internet subjects and do in fact rely on BR. Hector Lopez comes to mind in fact. There aren't a lot of sources that describe him as the third outfielder in of the Mantle-Maris era Yanks the way I am able to do by pointing to BR stats. Please note that WP:RS says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." There is no claim that Sean Forman is an authoritative baseball figure. Sports-reference presents no documentation of an editorial process for any of its sites, BR included. What we have is a guy who gathers a whole bunch of other sources and assimilates them. He is basically doing what wikipedians do with reliable sources. WP would not cite another wiki as a reliable source. A diligent assembler of good sources is not a "reliable publication process". Because the sources are so good and much of the resulting content is unlikely to be wrong or misleading, we accept it in most cases. However, when possible we should defer to more reliable sources. The first B-R fact that I saw when I glanced over at the article moments ago was "He hit a solo home run in the AL Central Tiebreaker game, which proved to be the difference as the White Sox defeated the Minnesota Twins, 1–0." This is a 2008 Wild Card playoff game. Yes, you could source this with the current B-R.com reference. However, there are a dozen other sources you could use. You could go to ESPN and use either the box score or the Associated Press recap. Using either of these would put the reader in a tabbed environment with the other easily accessible. You could source it with the MLB.com recap. The second or third place I would look would be the New York Times. There are a bunch of other sources that you could check, including NBC Sports, CBS Sports, CNN/SI, etc. Some of these will also rely on the Associated Press as ESPN does and others will have their own writers. However, all of these would be source with both "a reliable publication process" and "authors who are regarded as authoritative". The BR source is in truth neither "a reliable publication process" nor "authors who are regarded as authoritative". Thus, as I said before I would pursue replacing as many BR refs as possible with Associated Press recaps at ESPN, MLB.com or NYTimes.com. For preinternet facts, I would not press you, bu tin this case, there is little reason to relegate ourselves to BR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose Largely due to inadequate WP:ICs. This is a modern day player. Many of his accomplishments have easily findable online refs. I think I could easily tag two dozen sentences in the Professional career section with {{fact}}. In the "Minnesota Twins (2010–2011)" subsection there are easily a half dozen specific facts that I can not really WP:V. Things that happened on April 12, 2010, April 8, August 17, September 4, January 2011, etc. all need ICs. These are things in the current decade that I am sure have dedicated ESPN.com and MLB.com stories. It is inexcusable for such a modern events not to be WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • EricEnfermero has done some terrific work adding sources (thanks Eric!); let me know if you find other specific omissions in terms of sources ... I think the reason some of them are missing sources is that, at one point, this article relied predominantly upon a JockBio biography, which has since been removed. Over the last several months, I have been replacing those, but obviously have missed some. Thanks for pointing that out, TonyTheTiger. Go Phightins! 17:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, I would ask that you yourself go back through the entire professional career section. Look at each sentence and ask yourself it is a fact that likely has a story online in a WP:RS. If so, if the fact currently does not have a WP:IC, find one. I really should not have to run through each paragraph like I did for the one I presented. Everything for the last 10 or 12 years certainly should have an online story. I am pretty sure ESPN game recaps from the Associated Press go back about that far. The writing is excellent. However, in terms of WP:V, the article has a lot of room to improve.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More examples of things that need citation (and possibly more detail):
  • "Injuries shortened his 1992 campaign,"
  • "Thome had his first career multi-home run game"
  • Cited with home run log ... easily discerned from there; Google News archive, however, is no longer particularly accessible, so alternate news article would be difficult to ascertain (I perused HighBeam for a moment, and did not find any)
  • The daily Associated Press American League round up is a much better source. Something is wrong with one of the citations for this fact. It seems to be broken. However, what you need to track a lot of older facts is a way to find the daily American or National League roundup from the Associated Press. It seems that the Los Angeles Times is one of the newspapers that prints this roundup daily and has online archives going back to the early 1990s. Each day you are looking for a link like this. Then find whichever roundup you need. Probably any fact notable enough to be in the WP article should be in the AP daily league roundup. E.g., see his 1st multi-homer game recap. If you use the league roundup, we don't have to deal with how WP defines a WP:RS. No one is going to question anything from the AP in the LA Times. By the early or mid 2000s you can find every game recap on ESPN.com--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was not until 1995 that the Indians' success led to a playoff berth." I am sure there are newspaper stories that say this was the Indians first playoff appearance in X years.
  • Not really relevant how long it has been since they made the playoffs; he wasn't on the team the last time, but cited to Who's Who in Baseball anyway.
  • "Thome led the team by hitting .314 with 25 home runs and 73 RBIs"
I will begin to lean more strongly on the oppose if this article does not pursue WP:V with WP:ICs from WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few more citations have been added. Phightins is Gone (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck: I checked the following sources: 3, 4, 21, 41, 50, 60, 78, 102, 105, 115, and 137, chosen randomly excluding the first two. The duplication detector showcased nothing of worry, but more importantly everything noted in the article is seen in the references, and written in the writer's own words. The only nitpick I have is that i see that Joe Posnanski's article on Thome at 40 is in the article a few times. Technically, it's referenced by each of the four Sports Illustrated pages so it's okay as is in my book, but if anyone else has an issue then that might need tweaking. Either way I'm entirely fine with how the well-cited article as is on that front. Wizardman 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I asked to do a spot check being an "expert" in this field, all the information matches, everything is accurate, easily among Wikipedia's best written work and I recommend one of the FAC delegates to ignore TonyTheTiger's comments above as his review is based on his personal opinion and not rooted in policy. Secret account 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not basing my review on personal opinion, but rather personal experience in WP reviews. I can add a couple dozen {{fact}} tags to the article to demonstrate its deficiencies, but we have not gotten to that point. I have issues with lack of ICs, use of BR and team season issues. You should not ignore my whole review due to a disagreement on one issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right. Can we please hammer out this issue on the reliability of Baseball Reference? I posed several points above, and am more than willing to go to WT:BASEBALL or the reliable sources noticeboard should you really wish to challenge the reliability of the site, but it is plainly evident throughout a myriad of FAs that it has been deemed reliable, possibly even including some you have supported. What exactly is your issue with it? Go Phightins! 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: You have cited it numerous times in your current FAC too ... Go Phightins! 22:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1988 is pre-internet. By the time Thome got to a point in his career where he was hitting milestones we were in the internet era. I said I have been told to replace it in places where it can be easily done. IIRC, even the Wheatley article retains some sports-reference.com sources that weren't easily replaced. BR is an adequate source, but it should not be used when other far superior sources exist that have clear editorial processes are available.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as WP:CHICAGO director I rarely get involved in FAC discussions for our project. However, the lack of WP:V for this article is basically a state of emergency. The prose is of such good quality that I feared the article would pass without meeting a standard that goes beyond the old "Brilliant Prose" that once was approved at WP:FAC. However, now that we require WP:ICs for every fact in the article, many WP:RS need to be added to this article to differentiate it from the WP:FAs of years gone by. I have stepped in to attempt to guide the development of this article. Progress is not being made in any direction that is encouraging. Thus, I have downgraded my Leaning Oppose to a full Oppose. I will begin adding {{fact}} throughout the article by the end of the week if progress is not made. I don't want this to be the only WP:CHICAGO FA from this decade that does not meet WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a plethora of inline citations in this article, and I have read through it several times trying to discern exactly what you want cited, and I think perhaps some of the confusion may be that multiple sentences are supported by a single ref, at least one of which is offline, which may cause confusion. I do find your prevailing sentiment of "I am here from WP:CHICAGO to save Wikipedia from promoting a crappy FA" to be rather unnecessarily unnecessary (I will stipulate that isn't exactly brilliant prose there ) ... this article has been through a rigorous GA review, a PR and a de facto second PR, and this FAC, which has included several commentators, including one who did a source spotcheck, that have not shared your concerns, so I am rather torn as to an appropriate course of action in this situation, as you seem to be the only one that thinks one must cite that the sky is blue. Fine, tag them with fact tags, but that really borders on disruptive. You are more than welcome to list on this page what you think needs cited (yes, I know there are 4 items above at which I have not yet had time to look), but introducing tags throwing the credibility of an already good article (see Talk:Jim Thome/GA1 - it was hardly a rubber stamp) is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 10:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits by EricEnfermero were a step in the right direction. The subsequent edits have not really helped out to much. If you don't see things that are not WP:V, then I will have to {{fact}}. You can try to waive the WP:BLUE wand if you like when I do, but I am pretty experienced at GA. Obviously you can remove all the ones that are cited in a broader WP:IC. It might be better if you had Eric go through all the other sections and do what he did in the section that I pointed out. Obviously he understood the relevance of WP:V, even if you don't. WP:BLUE has little to do with this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more citation work done; for the record, for edits that have "not helped out to [sic] much", you have stricken several of your concerns. Go Phightins! 20:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ESPN articles provide the date of the game, but not the date of the recap, which could be either the date of the game, or the date of the wee hours of the subsequent morning. Go Phightins! 21:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Game date is O.K. since even night games start at 7 or 8 local time. Not too many games go past 4 or 5 hours and recaps are up on line within 10 or 15 minutes after the game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, though I know for the Phillies.com recaps, Todd Zolecki usually posts them at about 1:00 AM (e.g., [http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_04_14_atlmlb_phimlb_1&mode=recap_home&c_id=phi this one was posted at 1:45 the next day). It seems to me that speculating on when the report might have been posted is not necessary because a) in line, the citations are generally included after mentioning a date, and b) if the reader clicks on the link, they will see the day that the recap is recapping, and can go from there; some ESPN articles say "date published" on the right side under the title, but these do not, so I am inclined to leave it go, unless that's a sticking point for you. Go Phightins! 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MLB.com may have a different deadline structure than the Associated Press. Usually within about 15 minutes there is a sketch of the recap. It might take an hour or so for the final version of the full story, but it is acceptable to use the game date, IMO. That is what I always use. BTW edit summaries like this that say "before I'm told this needs a citation" present a really bad attitude. You are not adding citations so that I am happy. We add ICs so that the reader is happy when he can WP:V. You are not adding citations to make me happy with your FA nomination today. You are adding them so that every person who reads the article going forward can WP:V things from a WP:RS. This is not a you vs. me thing. This is a you and the reader thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the edit summary ... I was just somewhat frustrated. That citation, frankly, is probably extraneous, as the subsequent citations cover it, but the impression I got reading your earlier comments was that every sentence needed a citation immediately after it, which was the frustrating part for me. Perhaps this was a false impression, but a couple of the things you previously mentioned were cited in subsequent sentences, so I was not sure. I will add the game dates as dates for the references. Go Phightins! 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I added the dates. I have read through the article three times now looking for things that might possibly need citations, and have not found much. At this point, go ahead and compile a list (here preferably rather than fact tags, but I suppose whichever, as I am free for another couple of hours and can remove them in short order) of what still needs cited. Also, I have tried to tweak a few season links, but am struggling to work the year, team and "season" all into a sentence for a few of the links without sounding choppy and awkward. Go Phightins! 22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a couple of hours please fix some of the older refs too. Many of them also need dates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the ones I caught. Go Phightins! 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at the footnotes, I saw bunches of them like 25, 26, 27, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with 25-27? They all have dates, and look like they have necessary information to me? I caught several that were missing dates, and I am sure someone who has worked on as many GAs and whatnot as you can empathize with the nauseating feeling that comes after looking at a reflist for a while, so I got Wizardman to look in IRC, and he found a few more, so I believe all have dates, at least that we caught. Go Phightins! 10:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about 25-7. Your box scores don't have publisher dates, also what about 40.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 94 is obsolete. 114 may be as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
119 supports 19 not 20.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you update these numbers? I think I removed what used to be 94, but am unsure. Which one is 114, 119, and 120 now? Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the history and find the proper version.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel inclined to do that, as nothing is jumping out at me in the references in that area right now. If you still have a concern with those references, please be specific about which ones they are. Go Phightins! 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously saying that you think it is my responsibility to keep track of what the numbers are. At 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC) I complained about 40, 94, 114 and 119. You have fixed one of those and responded to several other concerns often by adding refs. Thus, three of these remain unaddressed. All you have to do is go to the history tab in Thome's article and find the last version before this time and see which references were at those 4 numbers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think when those reference numbers change, since you best know what you are talking about, it might be mildly courteous to just repeat them with new numbers rather than send me guessing into the article history ... some times on this site appear in EDT for me, while others in UTC because of something I set at one point that I really should unset, but anyway, the numbers do not appear to match up for me, so I was merely asking if you still remembered what references you had concerns with. Go Phightins! 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40 is now 42, 114 now 118, 119 now 123.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it now. Go Phightins! 02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that this, which is in the neighborhood of 40, is a concern, but I don't know why, as it is appropriately cited, and is static. I guess 114 might be the ESPN scouting report, which, though I am an ESPN insider, I cannot view for some reason at the moment. Whaddya think of Fangraph's reliability? I can try there ... I have no idea what your issue with this is. Are you talking about this? That would make sense, and I see what you are saying. Fixed. Go Phightins! 13:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, I see your post, and will take another look later this evening (hopefully). I am off to Maundy Thursday services at church now, and we are eating afterwards, though, so it might not be until tomorrow. Are there any other facts in the article that you think need citations? Go Phightins! 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will am reading the career section closely looking for uncited facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thome made his MLB debut on September 4, 1991, as a third baseman against the Minnesota Twins."-not sourced--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The game box score is there, which indicates that he played third base, and his BR page is now there to confirm that was the date of his debut. Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For the 2001 Indians' season, he finished second in the AL with 49 home runs. In addition, Thome had 124 RBIs and 111 walks. However, he led the league with 185 strikeouts. He and Juan Gonzalez, who totaled 140 RBIs, powered the Indians to another division title." seems to have several uncited facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source added (not really added, source already in the article cited again) Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "finishing one behind Mike Schmidt's single-season team record of 48 in 1980"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was implied in the source given, but added Schmidt's BR page for additional verification. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What am I missing? Does the MLB.com article say something about him falling one short of the record. From the 3 citations, I can see that it was one short of Schmidt's total, but how do we know 48 was the record at the time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're correct. I misread the ref, thinking it was talking about season home runs, not career home runs. Fixed now.
    • "first ever to do it with a walk-off home run" appears to be source to the immediately-subsequent IC, but I don't see the fact in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it was not in the article; good catch. However, it was in a game recap, which is now added. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was the 12th walk-off home run of his career, tying him for the most all-time."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation added.
  • A couple of times when he was injured, you never say what the injury was.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Injuries are covered ad nauseam in the player profile section ... for the "injuries shortened his 1992 campaign", I have only information that he was on the disabled list, no indication why, and since the Google News Archive is essentially closed, I have little recourse to find why. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • you mention "rising young stars" and then say "Led by this group of players". You never name the rising stars.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. good catch. A list of players was there a few days ago, but I reworded per a suggestion from another editor. Fixed (though check wording - seems a little ... meh ... not terrific to me). Feel free to boldly change. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying you were asked to remove the list of players by another editor? Who was in the list?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wizardman, Secret, and I were in the wiki-baseball IRC channel discussing the article, and Wizardman was offering some minor copyediting suggestions, one of which had to do with this sentence: "In the 1994 offseason, Cleveland made several acquisitions in an attempt to compete after seven consecutive seasons with a losing record. Sandy Alomar Jr., Kenny Lofton, Carlos Baerga, and Mark Clark were brought in to join Thome and 22-year-old Manny Ramirez.[15]" (appears in this revision). I believe Secret opined that those were not all household names, and Wizardman commented that it wasn't technically correct, as at least one of those players had already been there, so we agreed the best course of action would be to direct quote the article rather than the former wording, which was somewhat synthesis (in all honesty, I don't remember why the list of names was ever there ... it could have been me a long time ago, or not me even a longer time ago). Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Details like who the heck you are talking about are important to a reader. The list needs to be there for the reader. He is not going to know who you are talking about unless you tell him. He should want to know who you are talking about and you should tell him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, but the article doesn't list names, and I don't know how they got there ... they are not sourced, so I can list who some new acquisitions were and cite it to, I don't know, BR, or something, but that's still synthesizing the meaning of the article, and probably is a violation of WP:NOR. If you look at the article (which I just did to refresh myself), there is somewhat of a positional blow-by-blow, but it does not encompass the names that were previously listed. Let me reword the sentence to see what I can do that will not be original research/synthesis, TonyTheTiger. Go Phightins! 12:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see Alomar and Carlos Baerga joined the Indians in 1990 and Lofton in 92 and Clark in 1993. I suggest that you remove "With help from the aforementioned acquisitions and young stars,"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • That should read "with the help of the aforementioned core". Oh, I see why it doesn't; that edit is in my editing window, but I never saved it. Done. What about Fangraphs? Go Phightins! 13:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The ESPN scouting report now loads for me, so I updated that piece of information to reflect the end of his career, and now we are good on that front. I think that all your reference concerns are now addressed, TonyTheTiger. Go Phightins! 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Which piece of information are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sorry, mentioned above. The reference to his ESPN scouting report was not loading for me, but then it did, and I updated the information, so it should be correct (reference #118) Go Phightins! 02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First use of The Plain Dealer should be linked rather than later use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed both in the body of the article, and in the citations. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wizardman is your Source spotcheck considered the source review for this FAC? If so can you give me an explanation of condoning rampant use of Baseball-reference.com I have argued that its use should be minimized in my 06:00, 14 April 2014 post. Please note that WP:RS says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." I don't see how BR qualifies on either count, but understand its favorable track record for reliability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the only one that seems to have a problem with baseball-reference, which has long been established as reliable for statistics. If what you're looking for is sources noting the site's reliability, then here's some: [2][3]. Sure it's nice to cite news sources themselves for numbers, but there's no issue in using it to note season totals, records, and the like. Plus it's used 12 times out of 151 sources (not counting the same source used multiple times), so a 10% usage rate is certainly not rampant. Wizardman 23:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem is that despite its good reputation, it is not an RS by definition. Second, although BR is acceptable to use because it is reliable, it would be an improvement to use better sources because for many of the facts cited by BR a source with prose contextualizing the fact while also providing verification would be superior to just BR's statistical verification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it does not meet the definition of a reliable source. It has an incredibly strong reputation per the aforementioned articles from Wizardman. According to WP:SOURCE, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." Sports Illustrated is undoubtedly a "respected mainstream publication" that praises Baseball-Reference. Moreover, it certainly does not meet any of the negative criteria in WP:NOTRELIABLE. Moreover, you stipulated "BR is acceptable to use because it is reliable"; I see absolutely no need whatsoever to go digging through archives to contextualize stats. At the end of the day, Baseball-Reference is being used in this article to cite statistics. Using it as a source violates no policies, it is a top-notch source for baseball statistics, and there is no compelling reason other than personal preference to unequivocally abandon it and go digging for other sources that are no more reliable. By the way, I believe your above concerns are addressed. Go Phightins! 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand the value of contextualizing facts to the reader? Saying "I see absolutely no need whatsoever to go digging through archives to contextualize stats" sounds off to me. Look back at the refs I offered above for his first multihomer game versus the BR citation you are using. Think about what the references offer the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In some situations, I agree that contextualizing facts is important. However, for example, in none of the five instances his BR page (just the normal page) is used, do I think there is need to dig for increased contextualization. In some of the games, would it be nice? Perhaps, but nowhere in the FA criteria does it stipulate "references must be appropriately contextualized", so to hold up this FAC over that is not exactly helpful. What other concerns do you have about the article meeting those criteria? Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where we stand from TonyTheTiger's perspective
  • Done - those links are added. By the way, as a Chicagoan, you might know this - what is the possessive form of White Sox? White Sox's White Sox'? Go Phightins! 10:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generous" needs to be immediately followed by a link describing the offer in that way (and hopefully clarifying the undisclosed nature of the offer).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the third time in Thome's career that his team had opened a new stadium – the 1994 Cleveland Indians when they opened Jacobs Field and the 2004 Philadelphia Phillies when they opened Citizens Bank Park." We need some more WP:ICs for this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Tony, happy Easter to you. I will work on these things as soon as I get settled down watching this afternoon's Phillies games, which will be in about a half hour. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right, I believe the season links are addressed, I worked on the generous contract offer thing, and think it is all right now, and added citations for the opening of Citizens Bank Park and Jacobs Field, seeking to include information that tied Thome to it. For the Phillies, it was not hard, as he hit the first double in CBP history in the first game, however I found it somewhat challenging for the Indians. I added a highlight reel that shows Thome visually, as well as a pamphlet from the Indians indicating its opening date. I suppose the Baseball-Reference box score is always an option too ... Go Phightins! 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I no longer oppose this article. As the director of the project, I rarely support anything within WP:CHICAGO and this will not be an exception.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 22 April 2014 (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_article_candidates/Jim_Thome/archive2&oldid=1146545262"