Template:Did you know nominations/Major League Baseball Authentication Program


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Major League Baseball Authentication Program

 * ... that Major League Baseball has authenticated a smashed telephone and some dirt? Source: USA Today Chron
 * Reviewed: T.S.R. Subramanian vs Union of India
 * Comment: For 29th March (MLB Opening Day)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article creation date is 21 February, not 26, so this is filed under the wrong date in Template talk:Did you know. But no matter, still filed within one week.  Article length okay.  Article neutrality okay, no sense of copyvio.  Hook length and interest good.  QPQ done.  However two issues:


 * Re the sourcing, fns 1 and 5 are missing the publication date, which is more important than the retrieval date. More importantly, unless I missed something, fns 5, 6, and 7 do not actually mention the MLB authentication program.  Indeed fn 5 says "...  they actually presented what they claim to be the 'exact, authenticated' visitor's dugout phone ..."  Note the 'claim'; and the photo of the mounted phone in fn 6 doesn't show the authentication program hologram anywhere.  With fn 7 you are closer, but still there is nothing that links the authentication of the dirt to this specific program, and the WP:SYNTH patrol may well object.


 * Re the hook, 'Major League Baseball' as an entity is singular, so I think the hook should say 'has authenticated' not 'have authenticated'.


 * Re the article content itself, you should indicate where the authenticators sit, I was having trouble visualizing this whole process until I read it in the SI source.


 * So this nomination is going to need some more work. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was mainspaced today (I just forgot to put the right category on) so the date is correct. As for the rest, I have reworded the article and added another source confirming the phone was authenticated likewise the dirt. I have amended the hook as such.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Re filing date, my apologies, I missed the move to userspace in the history. Re fns missing publication dates, now four of them are in that state.  I got dinged in a recent review for not insisting on proper citing (see Template:Did you know nominations/John W. Overton) so this really needs to be fixed.  Re sourcing on program authentication of the phone, yes your new fn 8 states this explicitly, but your placements are wrong - fn 8 and fn 5 should swap locations, since only fn 8 supports the sentence "One example of this was when the Baltimore Orioles got the remains of a dugout telephone that was smashed by the Boston Red Sox's David Ortiz authenticated."  Re the hook, 'has' is the proper tense here, not 'had'.  Re seating location, thanks for adding that.  Re your reverting my template notification with the comment "WP:DTTR", don't you think that's kind of harsh?  That essay refers to policy templates with a pejorative connotation, not innocuous review notification templates.  And the DYK review instructions don't make it optional; they say "Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem ..., not "Notify non-regular nominators ..."   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes now. I don't see how it is harsh as I added an edit notice which clearly asks people please not do that.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg {{ping|The C of E}} Ah, I completely missed that edit notice on your talk page; was on autopilot by then. Article is now good to go up.  But for the record, and if you want to improve the article's appearance, I'll note that you have a misplaced space in "Star Tribune", that "Houston Chronicle" is misplaced into a story title, that names of newspapers and magazines are normally italicized, and that you should be consistent about whether you include author names in your news cites.  In any case, thanks for creating an interesting article; I've watched baseball for many years but did not know about this authentication program.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * {{ping|The C of E}} Wow, great minds think alike! I've been working on a page for several years called Major League Baseball Properties, and this authentication program was one of things I researched. If you like, you can use my background information for a "Background" section at the beginning of your article, and any other facts in the body. Or I could add the material if you're okay with it. See User:Yoninah/sandbox. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg OK, I expanded the article. It would be nice to get a DYK co-creation credit. IMO the hook is kind of vague. If you don't know that they authenticate things, you won't know what the hook is talking about. Game-used merchandise and memorabilia is actually a huge business; buyers certainly want to make sure that what they're buying for hundreds of dollars (or more) is the real deal. Would you consider:
 * ALT1: ... that Major League Baseball began authenticating game-used merchandise and memorabilia after the FBI discovered that 75 percent of autographs purported to be from MLB people were fake?
 * ALT2: ... that Major League Baseball authenticates over half a million pieces of game-used merchandise and autographs a year using a hologram that will self-destruct if someone tries to remove it? Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think my original is better as it is more hooky. There was no need to put the question mark to override the tick, when we could have allowed the promoter to choose. I will ask {{ping|Wasted Time R}} to restore the green tick please.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We need a reviewer for ALT1 and ALT2 before restoring the tick. There is no hurry here. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the original the best. Yes, it is vague and mysterious, that's the whole point, to lure the reader into clicking through to the article.  ALT1 and ALT2 are quite informative on a stand-alone basis and thus don't serve well as hooks.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. Restoring your tick. Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)