- The following 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 SL93 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
John Gamble (baseball)
5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC).
The article appears to meet requirements regarding expansion and a QPQ has been provided. No close paraphrasing was found too. The hook is mentioned inline and verified. However, I have reservations if it would make sense to people who aren't baseball fans. It seems reliant on baseball knowledge, particularly the terms "pinch runner" and "stolen base", and if a reader isn't familiar with either concept, they may not understand the hook. I'm going to ping Sammi Brie and Theleekycauldron and see if they can make some alternate suggestions for hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I selected the hook as a play on his name (i.e. attempting to steal a base can be viewed as a "gamble"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly the connection wasn't clear and is very easy to miss. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hence why "pinch runner" and "stolen base" are wikilinked. Anyone unfamiliar with the terms or the sport are free to click on said links to learn more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I was going to suggest an ALT1... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the only run scored by John Gamble was a game-winner?
I am fine with ALT1. Requesting a second look at both ALT0 and ALT1 from an uninvolved editor. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Approving only ALT1. ALT0 is rejected due to issues regarding clarity to non-specialists. ALT1 is interesting and is verified in the BR source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I asked for an uninvolved editor to have a look. And no, we do not have to bend over backwards to placate non-specialists. That is not a requirement in WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG. Either ALT0 and ALT1 are up for consideration, or I will regrettably have to say no to ALT1 (which is frankly less interesting than ALT0). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, our interestingness requirement makes it pretty clear that it needs to be attractive to a broad audience – I worry that ALT0 isn't easily recognizable for how clever it is (not a great quality in hooks that only get a few seconds of attention). ALT1 is pretty straight-forward, but doesn't burn down the house. I'm frankly not enamoured by either hook, but do have a preference for ALT1 if one has to run. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting ≠ attractive. A hook that is not attractive to "non-specialists" because of the terminology used can still end up being interesting because of its content and wording. Case in point: Shagging (baseball). I highly doubt anyone was interested in clicking the bold link because they were attracted to baseballs or ACL injuries. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I will provide a second review for this nomination, as requested by the nominator.
Epicgenius (
talk) 14:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: I am approving ALT0 and ALT1 (my preference is for ALT1). I did notice that the article has appeared in ITN, but WP:DYKCRIT says: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day"
. This wasn't a bold link, so I will approve this nomination. Nice work on this article. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: any particular reason why you did not also approve ALT0? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Bloom6132: Oh, I thought for some reason that you wanted a reviewer to look only at ALT1. I have approved ALT0 too, but note that ALT1 is my preference. Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: no worries – thank you for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I am approving ALT0 and ALT1 (my preference is for ALT1). I did notice that the article has appeared in ITN, but WP:DYKCRIT says: