I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over these past few weeks and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
[Please note that the 3 rows that have no refs are already sourced at the bottom in the "General" references. The other columns all have individual sources due to the availability of play-by-play boxscores and/or the need to source Hall of Fame membership.]
"no player has ever struck out more than three batters on nine pitches in a game." - Doesn't a strikeout, by definition, require three pitches or more? If so, this is fairly redundant to state.
I linked the "more than three..." part to the section in the strikeout article discussing striking out more than three batters in an inning. If it makes it any clearer, I could change the wording to say "no player has ever struck out four batters on twelve pitches in a game." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That would be a bit less redundant. Remember, it's "three strikes you're out at the old ball game" so there is no way to strike out four batters in nine pitches (which is what was implied by the sentence you had there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's awfully far down the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
becoming the only player to achieve the feat in both leagues. - relation to MLB unclear
Fixed. Changed to "becoming the only player to achieve the feat in both leagues of the MLB." —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
What are the numbers in the "Batters faced" column for?
It signifies a batter who has been the "victim" of an immaculate inning 2+ times. I've removed the (1) from the list in order to maintain consistency with the pitcher's column, which does not designate the first occasion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Should preferably be in the key as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Support on prose and images. Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about baseball. But the prose and the table look good. The only thing I noticed is that three entries in the table are missing refs.—Chris!c/t 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The entire table is sourced from the "General" subsection of the "References" section at the very bottom. I only added a specific ref if Baseball Reference provided a box score. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What about having a column for the box score. It would be interesting to see which team actually won. I think Baseball Reference is not the only baseball database out there. Maybe others can provide that info.—Chris!c/t 18:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Neither Baseball Almanac (the general ref), Baseball Reference nor Retrosheet provide the box score of the games before 1916. And c. 1920s box scores only have the games' final score but do not have the play-by-play description that references the actual immaculate inning as having taken place. Both are needed in order to reference the event. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
;Comments from Bagumba
Similar concern with missing entries in "Ref" column. It just looks weird, although I understand the general ref covers this. Perhaps a better question is whether "Ref" should be renamed something else? Also, a footnote for individual entries that explains why they are empty would would remove the perception that the table is incomplete.
Could I simply put a "—" through the empty cells? Or is there some way I can create a footnote that links directly to the "General" refs section? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What do the refs for 1889 and 1902 entries provide if they are not boxscores?
BR bio refs for Hall of Famers (see response below). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do some rows have two refs and others only one?
I included a ref to the player's BR bio if they are members of the HOF in order to verify their status as such. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Added general HOF ref at the bottom and kept the "Ref" column to just box scores. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You really should rename the "Ref" column; otherwise well meaning edits like this most recent one will add a reference thinking the entry is unsourced,and it wont be a boxscore as as you intend the column to be.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Renamed to "Box" instead. Sorry for the late response. I just got back to uni—the internet WiFi there isn't working and the earliest it can be fixed is Tuesday. As a result, I haven't been able to edit for the last 3 days and can only make limited edits off my iPhone. :( —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Support One nitpick: Wade Miley is linked twice in the lead (in the second paragraph). Regards.--Tomcat(7) 16:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Support. Per the request at WT:MLB, I used my "expert" eyes and checked the prose. Looks fine, although perhaps the Hall of Fame aspect is emphasized a little too much. Then again, perhaps it is not. AutomaticStrikeout ? 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment: shouldn't the title of the article be "List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches in a single inning"? Lots of pitchers have struck out 3 batters (non-specific on when - 2 batters in one inning, 1 batter in the next inning) on 9 pitches, but only a few have done that feat in a single inning. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:LISTNAME, the name of a list "is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." This saves from overly long titles (and the current one is already long as it is). The inclusion criteria can be further detailed in the article. A shorter title might be "List of Major League Baseball pitchers who pitched an immaculate inning", but do many people know what an immaculate inning is?—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the feat is "commonly known as an immaculate inning". Rejectwater (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What is referencing that 11 of the last 12 to achieve this feat are still "active"? (I would also consider changing that to "Active as of the 2013 season..."...
It was suppose to be Baseball Reference.com. However, after a previous comment on individual HOF'er bios, I removed those and utilized a general HOF player ref. Would you like me to add the BR refs for active players into the table? And if I were to do so, what do I do for all the empty cells where individual BR refs are not necessary? (i.e. do I place n/a or — ). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You could add the ref next to the name of the "active" player? That way you don't need a new col or n/a or en-dash or anything? Or, you could change Box to Ref(s) and add it there? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Mixed in the title as "Box & Ref", since I'd like to keep the boxscore explanation in the key. Also, instead of adding "Active as of the 2013 season...", I added a note explaining what being active entailed (as per Golden Spikes Award FL). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
More resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
*I noticed the recent changes to address The Rambling Man's above concern about references for active players. I guess it was an unforseen consequence of moving to a single ref for Hall of Fame members, as opposed to individual refs for each player. Still, if we need a ref that a player is active, it seems a ref would then also be needed to verify that the remaining players are not active. Also, I don't see why we are averse to a dedicated column for boxscore links, as opposed to the current co-mingling "Box & Ref"—which makes an extra step for the reader to find the link they are interested in.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not averse to the "Box" column containing solely boxscores. It's just that another column with blank, — or n/a symbols in it would look awkward. And the only reason why I needed a ref for active players (as oppose to inactive players) is because of the prose in the lead (i.e. "These requirements leave 11 players ineligible who are active") and their designation in the table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Unless it's verified that the others are inactive, we would not know that there are not more than the 11 identified so far.—Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF example doesn't address verifiability. However, I have an easier solution. The Baseball Almanac general ref lists all the players, which also has links to each player's profile where it can be verified if they are active/inactive. Therefore, I propose to remove the additional links for the active players as they are redundant to the general ref; otherwise for consistency, similar links should be added to verify which players are not active. If the links are removed, we can rename the column back to "Box" again.—Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Can I use Baseball Reference instead, for the sake of consistency (i.e. same source origin for HOF players and active/inactive ones)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That link is too general. The almanac link at least already lists all the players with an immaculate inning. I would just rely on the existing general refs.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Removed all specific BR player bios. (P.S. Does this count as the "thorough review" you said on your talk page?) —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, just doing cursory checks :-(—Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.