Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/T206 Honus Wagner

< 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 02:34, 13 December 2007.

T206 Honus Wagner edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. I started this article in my sandbox. After moving it to the mainspace, it passed GA, and was later featured on DYK. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great. It is scrupulously referenced, well written and easy to follow, and comprehensive in its coverage. Well done! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for an interesting article. The "Background" section has singular/pleural disagreement; can you give that a copyedit? Wishing you well in the FAC process. Rosiestephenson 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I've just run through the article, and I haven't caught any tense agreement issues (the only thing I could possibly think of is the tense usage for "ATC"). Could you point to specific ones? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics American Tobacco Company is singular; so is ATC. "ATC removed them from its tobacco packs" is ok. But these need attention: "their products" should be "its products", "so they" should be "so it", and "into their cigarette" should be "into its cigarette". Glad to assist with your FAC. Rosiestephenson 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Then my suspicions were correct. I will fix those mistakes now. Thank you! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As GA Reviewer. I thoroughly enjoyed not only reviewing, but reading this article in its entirety. As per my review, the few minor issues that I saw were quickly corrected, so no problems here as far as I can tell. Cheers, CP 06:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the criteria, very interesting article. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Article. Had some minor problems that were removed during copyediting. --MagneticFlux (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Query, the text says greatest player and finest player, neither sourced as far as I can tell; my question is, greatest player or greatest shortstop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy is right, this statement should be sourced, but for even a causual fan of baseball, he is FREQUENTLY cited as the best shortstop of all time, so finding sources should be easy. Consensus on that in most scholarly baseball sources is nearly unanimous. But it DOES need references.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't request a cite, just correction, because I thought it was shortstop; someone will probably eventually ask for a source, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much unanimous that he is the greatest shortstop of all time. At the time, he was considered the greatest player overall, but that is probably debated now (I have now added the words "...greatest player at the time" as a clarification). Unfortunately, I just returned The Card to my university library, so I won't be able to add a citation for at least a few days. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cite someone else then. If you have Bill James at your fingertips, I am sure he would agree somewhere. Or anyone else for that matter... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced to Bill James. James ranked Wagner the second-best player of all time, behind Babe Ruth. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real gem of an article. I got stuck only twice for a moment or two:
    • I assume from context that "The Professional Sports Authenticator" rates the quality of a card in terms of how well preserved it is? Or a financial appraisal? When you say they chose it as "the first baseball card to be graded", does this mean that they had never graded baseball cards before? Since Professional Sports Authenticator is a redlink, it might be helpful to have an additional sentence or clause to explain the significance/meaning.
      • It was a newly formed company, so they jumped on the opportunity to grade the Wagner card. The graders were already well-known in the industry as card graders. I will add a sentence or two about the significance, or I will make create the redlink. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph of the Gretzky section we have "Halper ... sold the card and 200 other baseball memorabilia items in 1998 to Major League Baseball for over $5,000,000.[25] Mastro sold his card two years later to Jim Copeland." I got confused here because reading these sentences in order it appeared that Mastro sold the card in 2000. But I gather that "two years later" refers to the 1985 date mentioned two paragraphs up?
      • Fixed. Mastro sold the card in 1987. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as my points are quite minor. --JayHenry (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/T206_Honus_Wagner&oldid=1138472533"