Talk:1999 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game

Baseball: Reds Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Cincinnati Reds (assessed as Mid-importance).

1999 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
January 24, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted
April 22, 2019	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jayson Stark called the 1999 New York Mets a "sinking ship" four days before they won the Wild Card in a tie-breaker game?
Current status: Good article

Reminder on a source[edit]

Didn't use it, but there was a great New York Times story from the period about Mets fans eating Tums during the game because the season had been so nerve-wrecking. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article here?[edit]

Why does a single game have its own article? -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it satisfies GNG thoroughly. It single-handedly decided a playoff spot. These articles have existed for a long time. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, you might want to say where the Astros are from. I mean, I know they're from Houston, but how 'bout your non-baseball reader. Also, you need to have a consistency, since you mention the Arizona Diamondbacks and Atlanta Braves by city and team name.
Good call, fixed.
Of course, I'm a baseball fan. ;)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Throughout the article, please link "Gerry Davis", "Michael Tucker", and "Mark Lewis" to their correspondence articles, as at the moment they stand out as disambiguations. In the lead, "The game took place on October 4, 1999 between" ---> "The game took place on October 4, 1999, between", commas after dates, if using MDY. In the Background section, per here, "August 1st" ---> "August 1", "September 30th" ---> "September 30". In the Aftermath, "...with the decisive game of the NLCS scoring the highest ratings for any LCS broadcast since 1993", I'm assuming that "LCS" is "League Championship Series", and if so, this needs to be noted.
All done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
~~In Reference 28, "Sports Illustrated" should be in the "work" format of the source, since it's a magazine publication.~~
All done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Staxringold for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]