Talk:Mike Witt's perfect game

Mike Witt's perfect 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.
Review: August 27, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Baseball: Angels Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

Passed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Witt's perfect game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Of the 27 batters Witt faced, only a few threated to reach base. -> threatened
as well as a long fly out in the eight inning that Witt initially assumed was going to be a home run. I am assuming Parrish also hit this ball. If so, to clarify, just start a new sentence and say Parrish also hit a long fly out...
two-time All-Star, and a win-loss record of 117-116 change to two-time All-Star with a win-loss record of 117–116, note an en-dash needs to be added

Background

the California Angels in 1978, and made the Angels opening day - no need for the comma
Rookie of the Year voting, and put up respectable stats - no need for the comma
7-14 needs an en-dash
hone his skills, and sought the help of professional hypnotists to increase his concentration when pitching. - no need for the comma
15-11 needs an en-dash

The game

to be over, and that they did not take - no comma needed
with a single, and advanced to second base - no comma needed
Los Angeles Times, and was not closely - no comma needed
rewrite his story in such as short time - reword (such a short time?)
to be a home run, before Mike Brown - no comma needed
two batters, and took the - no comma needed

Aftermath

sun, and that they had a hard time seeing pitches. - no need for the comma
praised Witt, and said: - no need for the comma
18-10 needs an en-dash
perfect game, and tried to figure - no need for the comma
117-116 needs an en-dash

Statistics

Ideally, we wouldn't rely on links to convey the meaning of acronyms. Can you add a legend or use {{Abbreviation}} to define the headings of the table nd the positions?

References

I reworked the references into a cleaner format, hope you don't mind.
I don't have access to the books, which are a good amount of the references, but AGF and not seeing anything controversial that may warrant additional investigation.
Spot check:
- Ref #1 looks good in all 3 uses. That said, you don't need to use the same reference after two sentences in a row that are both being cited to the same source.
- Ref #2 looks good in both uses.
- Ref #3 looks good. It does need "url-access=subscription" though.
- Ref #7 looks good. It does need "url-access=subscription" though.
- Ref #8 looks good in all four uses.
- Don't have access to #15.

Images

Both images look ok, although I admittedly don't know the intricacies of trading cards in the public domain.

Looks really good, only minor edits. Putting on hold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Hi there! Thank you for taking up this review. My life's been a bit hectic over the last few days, but after tomorrow I should be able to address the issues brought up in the review. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Addressed most of the comments. There is one that I wanted to talk about

Regarding the Statistics section, I've never seen a baseball article on Wikipedia use either a key or abbreviate the acronyms. Take for example 2009 World Series, 2008 American League Central tie-breaker game, and Philip Humber's perfect game. In fact, the Template:Linescore doesn't even allow for {{Abbreviation}} as far as I can tell. With that said, I did edit the box score tables in my sandbox with the abbreviation template to show you what it would look like. I'm not opposed to adding the template to the box score in the article, just figured I should let you know what I've seen in other baseball articles. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Hobo, I'll leave it to your discretion. Won't hold up the pass. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.