Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with a home run in their first major league at bat/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with a home run in their first major league at bat edit

List of Major League Baseball players with a home run in their first major league at bat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • "One hundred twenty-five different players" - being British I would say "One hundred and twenty-five different players", but I believe this is valid usage in American English?
  • "Ernie Koy and Heinie Mueller were the first players to hit home runs in their first at bats in the same game" - this reads a bit oddly to me, although I am struggling to summarise why. It might be better wording as something like "The game between Brooklyn Dodgers and Philadelphia Phillies on Opening Day in 1938 was the first in which two players hit home runs in their first at bats...." and then detail who they were
  • I usually prefer putting the subject (i.e. the players) as close to the start of the sentence. I think it reads bizarrely because of the two "in"s in close proximity (i.e. "in their first at bats in the same game"). But I will change it to your suggested wording if it makes it easier for reading. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bob Nieman and Keith McDonald proceeded to hit another home run in their second at bat" - I think "Bob Nieman and Keith McDonald each proceeded to hit another home run in his second at bat" would be better
  • I would move the ref for Gaetti's 360 to the end of the sentence, it looks a little odd where it is
  • Note B - "in top of the 2nd inning" => "in the top of the 2nd inning"
  • Note H - "because he had already faced 5 pitches" => "because he had already faced five pitches"
@ChrisTheDude: thanks for the feedback! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Koy and Mueller bit remains unchanged. I think I have put my finger on what reads oddly to me about it - "Ernie Koy and Heinie Mueller were the first players to hit home runs in their first at bats in the same game" could be interpreted to mean that never before had two players both homered the first time they came up to bat within that particular game. Does that make sense.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: yes, it does make sense – thanks for explaining it from that angle. I've reworded the sentence to read: "Ernie Koy and Heinie Mueller were the first players to accomplish the feat in the same game, doing so for the …" How does that sound? —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can take this later in the day. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although MLB was founded in its current iteration in 1903, statistics from the National League, American League and American Association that were recorded before that year have been retroactively recognized as major league. Do you have a source for this? Who recognizes them as major league? I'm surprised the Players' League isn't in this although they were found by MLB to be a major league in 1968 (see Lewis).
  • One hundred and twenty-five different players have hit a home run in their first at bat of a Major League Baseball (MLB) game to date I think "to date" isn't how we're supposed to demarcate time, try using Template:As of
  • Both players are recognized by whom?
  • their first and their last major league at bat. not sure we need the second their.
  • Paul Gillespie and John Miller perhaps add "first baseman" to John Miller ie first baseman John Miller to differentiate Miller from the pitcher or Ox Miller.
  • Brackets are not included in prose text unless more than one person of the same name is mentioned. This is not the case here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul Gillespie and John Miller are the only players to hit a home run in both their first and their last major league at bat.[12][13] Those were the only home runs that Miller ended up hitting during his stint in the MLB I think you can combine these with a semicolon
  • That would take the word count to 42. I prefer not to go over 30 words in a sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another user merged the two sentences, but dropped the total word count to 36 by rephrasing. I've kept that change. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, Gary Gaetti, with 360, hit more home runs perhaps "has hit". As of when?
  • Indicates the player was a pitcher maybe "Indicates the player was primarily a pitcher", certainly could have played other positions in career.
  • Doesn't matter if he could have played other positions in career. What matters here is the position he played in this specific game (which is what this symbol covers).
  • Indicates the home run was hit on the first career pitch of the pitcher or of the batter?
  • Of course the batter. Otherwise this list would've been titled "List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have given up a home run in their first major league at bat". —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicates the home runs were hit in consecutive at bats could be more specific for which home runs, ie first in a plate appearance if I'm implying right.
  • First home runs in an at bat (not plate appearance, which include walks, HBPs, sac flies, etc.). Should I re-word to "… home runs were hit in consecutive first at bats"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Player is active as of what season?
  • As of the most recent season. Again, not necessary, because an FL is supposed to be up to date. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure note E is essential, ie the Red Stocking switched leagues a few times but we don't note that on Tebeau.
  • I still think it's best to clarify the league switch. I don't want some editor down the line who wasn't aware of the league switch changing it to AL thinking that I had gotten it wrong. I can change it to a hidden comment if you think that'll be better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you looked for the times for the box scores for Tebeau and Griffin?

I suppose I will oppose for now due to the lack of inclusion of the Players' League in these stats even though the PL was a major league. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: I've addressed some of your comments. The others – I'll leave it to the FL director or his delegates to decide whether they pertain to FL criteria (many of them don't, in my humble opinion). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The exclusion of the PL in this list goes against 3A. Some of the comments (ie "That would take the word count to 42. I prefer not to go over 30 words in a sentence") amount to IDONTLIKEIT. Files' personality rights should be added per 5B. My oppose to the list stands. Will not comment further. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: "Will not comment further" Good – as I said above, I'll leave it to the FL director or his delegates to decide whether they pertain to FL criteria. And FYI, DONTLIKEIT is an essay (not policy or guideline) that applies to deletion discussions, which this isn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: The FL delegate and another editor have both stated that excluding the PL is fine and does not contravene FL criteria. I've done my best to address most of your remaining concerns. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, "Major League Baseball" is capitalized, which means that it refers to players in the leagues collectively known as Major League Baseball (MLB), and not to other leagues which are considered by historians to be "major leagues", such as the Pioneer League. For this reason, Therapyisgood's complaint is baseless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008 and PresN: I'm leaning towards pulling the plug on this one and nominating afresh. I feel this is being opposed on grounds that are beyond the scope of FL criteria. Frankly, some of the comments are bordering on absurd and have never been demanded of me in all my previous 24 successful FLCs (including 4 promoted this year). I, of course, assume good faith, given the fact that the reviewer only started editing in November 2019 and may not be all that familiar with the FLC process. However, the fact that they took me to ANI citing "General dickishness" (which was rightly SNOWCLOSE'd 17 minutes later) reinforces my belief as to the ridiculousness of these comments. What do you guys think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, a couple points:
  • Starting with content: to hit the big one off the bat, I feel that since this list is explicitly for "MLB", not "major league" baseball, that it's okay that it covers the leagues that became MLB and not the "major" leagues that did not. Might be nice to expand that note to mention why NL, AL, and AA are included (because they formed the MLB), but you don't need to add the Player's League.
  • Not wanting to go over 30 words per sentence is... unusual, but as long as everything is grammatically correct there's nothing wrong with not wanting to join concepts with a semicolon.
  • Another user merged the two sentences, but dropped the total word count to 36 by rephrasing. I've kept that change. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not content: "I don't have to do this because I didn't have to in a prior FL" is not a valid argument. A successful FLC is an indication that reviewers didn't have a problem with something; it doesn't mean that you are exempt from editors asking questions in the future. It's completely reasonable to ask for a source for a statement even if it was unsourced in prior FLs- if you don't think it needs to be sourced, explain why. As someone who also has a large FL series I know it can be frustrating to have a concern raised on something that has been fine for years and a dozen lists, but sometimes it happens and sometimes it's valid. FLs aren't perfect.
  • Please don't dismiss reviewers' concerns due to reasons outside of those concerns (e.g. because of their "newness" or ANI drama)- if the concerns are valid/invalid, they are such regardless of whatever else is going on with that user. --PresN 15:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed your first point and the second point got resolved by another editor who improved the sentence by merging and rephrasing. I've also addressed most of the reviewer's other comments, but I feel the rest (i.e. re images) is beyond my expertise. Should I withdraw this nom? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the templates they asked for; unable to archive the source for the one image. --PresN 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director comment – @Bloom6132: Sorry I didn't get back to you before. I see that Pres has given you some assistance. If you still want me to withdraw the nom, let me know and I'll close it over the weekend, when I do my next batch of closures (assuming Pres or TRM don't get around to it first). If not, I'd be happy to let it run, as it hasn't been open for too long and could use more time for a consensus to develop one way or the other (especially on the Players League issue). Regarding the image, I'd treat it like we normally handle Flickr images. If it was reviewed in good faith while the link was alive and the photo isn't an obvious copyvio the reviewer missed, my inclination would be to say that the image is okay for use. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: thanks and no worries! I think I'll let this nom run and see how consensus develops. Hopefully that'll give the reviewer a reasonable amount of time to revisit the feedback they gave. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • You could add "both" after George Tebeau and Mike Griffin in the lede
  • The sentence On the other hand, Gary Gaetti, with 360, hit more home runs than any other player to hit one in their first at bat. seems awkward, mainly in the way it refers to home-runs. I can’t think of a better way to reword it, and it’s not absolutely necessary, but I think it could be improved.
  • I've put the home run total within brackets – hope that works better. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice job on the notes - they’re really extensive.

That’s all I noticed right now. ~ HAL333 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: thanks for the comments! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias edit

Resolved comments from Harrias talk 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Note A: "Although MLB was founded in its current iteration in 1903, statistics from the National League, American League and American Association that were recorded before that year have been retroactively recognized as major league. This is because the aforementioned three leagues went on to form MLB." requires a reference.
  • Ref #2 does not support Zack Collins's home run being the most recent, just that it happened.
  • "..their first-at bat home run.." No need for the hyphen here.
  • Are ^ and ¢ accessible symbols? Consider either using letters, or other accessible symbols such as ↑ if not.
  • Replaced with accessible symbols ↑ and Mars symbol. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence "These requirements leave 18 players ineligible who are active, 1 player (Mike Napoli) ineligible who is living and has played in the past five seasons, and 75 players ineligible who did not play in 10 seasons." needs a reference, to avoid it appearing like OR or SYNTH.
  • Unfortunately, there isn't a single source that references the entirety of that statement (espc. since this is transient info with retirements and players reaching the 5+ season mark every year). And this has been fine in all my previous 17 baseball FLs. I could add a footnote at the end (like in the table key of Tip O'Neill Award and List of Major League Baseball single-inning strikeout leaders) stating something to the effect of: "The Baseball-Reference.com profiles of each player verifies their active status and service time". I could also list out all 75 players and inline cite each of them (yes, I actually went through their bios checking # of seasons played and compiled the list), but that could make for the longest footnote ever.—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fine to include unreferenced information in the lead if it is presented in the table, but in this case you are using information not present in the table (the length of career and retirements). I'd be interested in some input from the @WP:FLC director and delegates: Harrias talk 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a minimum, that should have a footnote saying the information is verified by the Baseball-Reference pages. Personally, I'd be inclined to remove the sentence, given that it is currently unverified, hard to source properly, and isn't really essential to the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added footnote. @Harrias: hope you can have a look at this to see that your remaining comments have been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "was hit on the first career pitch" mean?
  • Means the player hit a home run on the very first pitch they faced in their MLB career. Everyone else received up to 3 balls and 2 strikes beforehand. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you either make this more explicit, or add a footnote to explain it? Harrias talk 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and would appreciate if you would consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PCA Young Player of the Year/archive1 if you get a chance. Harrias talk 09:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: thanks for the feedback! I hope they've been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my concerns have been resolved, and I'm happy that this meets the FLC criteria. Harrias talk 07:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008 and PresN: in addition to giving input on Harrias' last unresolved comment, could I please trouble one of you to give this a dedicated source review? (if you are of the opinion that this is close to passing) Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source review – The reliability of the references looks fine to me. One small formatting issue sticks out: ref 2 could use a page number, if one is available, for verifiability. If it's one of the more recent Google Books links that doesn't include the page numbers, including the chapter name in the cite would work fine for me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't have a preview of either the page numbers or chapters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, is a replacement that is more easily verifiable for the readers possible? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't come across any. If I did, I would've used it instead. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like the missing page number, but going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_players_with_a_home_run_in_their_first_major_league_at_bat/archive1&oldid=970385853"