Template:Did you know nominations/1912 Boston Red Sox season

Not even close to the necessary expansion has been made.

1912 Boston Red Sox season

 * ... that the 1912 Boston Red Sox team won the franchise's first World Series due to a dropped pop-fly by Fred Snodgrass?

5x expanded by Sportsguy17 (talk). Self nominated at 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Reviewing for DYK, perhaps consider wikilinking "world series" (maybe) and definitely "pop-fly" (Non-baseball fans will have no clue) More to come.   Montanabw (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Article is long enough, prose section is 2131 text, not counting all the charts. Hook is short enough, presume a "muffed fly ball" is the same as a "dropped pop-fly" (though maybe the two should be reconciled so the same terminology is used both places), it's neutral, it's cited.  BUT
 * Symbol delete vote.svg The old version prior to the expansion beginning Jan 20 was 1263 characters, not counting all charts, (diff) so unfortunately, we do not have a 5x expansion here. Even if we count the January 13 edit in (which we can't) it was only changing a couple characters from the previous edit last November. The charts weren't changed, other than to add sources, so they won't help us get to a 5x expansion, and the refs section can't count for length as prose section. (sad to say, as that was a BIG improvement) I am willing to let someone offer a second opinion on this matter, but as I understand the rules, we can't pass this for DYK.  Montanabw (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct. Even if we were to work out the expansion issues, I don't think the hook is worded fairly. Snodgrass's teammates Meyers, Merkle and Mathewson were actually involved in the play where the Red Sox took the lead. As described in the article, the Snodgrass muff was one of the deciding plays, but the hook is worded more strongly - that the loss was "due to" the dropped ball by Snodgrass. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 14:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Closing comment: According to DYKcheck, the article had 1882 prose characters as of the January 13 edit, which is the baseline for the expansion that began on January 20. A 5x expansion would therefore require 9450 prose characters; the article currently has 2855, which is barely a 1.5x expansion. An additional 6595 characters simply isn't feasible if the additions so far have been less than 1000 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)