Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC).

List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders

 * Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

 * The title of this list seems odd, but I'm not sure there's really anything you can do about that. I personally think "List of Major League Baseball players who have hit two home runs in one inning" sounds better, but not only is it a longer title, every other baseball record list follows the same title format. Just wanted to point out that the title is kind of awkward to read.
 * Duly noted. The Baseball WikiProject decided a couple of years ago to standardize the wording of titles.  So I don't really have much say over this title, unfortunately. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you should mention in the first paragraph how there are two different ways of hitting a home run, either hitting the ball past the outfield fence or an inside the park home run
 * The MLB definition (which is what I used to write the first sentence) should suffice. I don't want to get into tedious details, since the specifics of the home run is not the point of this list (otherwise I'd also have to mention that a player must touch all bases for the home run to count]].  The reader can click the wikilink if they want to learn more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * One decade later, Alex Rodriguez set the single-inning American League record for RBIs with seven when he hit a three-run home run and a grand slam in the sixth inning for the New York Yankees on October 4, 2009. Link RBI.
 * Linked the earlier reference in the sentence that immediately preceded the one above (i.e. "… Tatís became the only player to hit two grand slams in the same inning and established a new major league record with eight runs batted in (RBI) in a single inning."). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Did any of the players on this list get one of their home runs via an inside the park home run? If so, I think you should mention that. If not, ignore this comment.
 * Not to my understanding. And unfortunately, the box scores do not differentiate between a home run on the fly vs. inside the park. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall this list looks solid. Table looks properly formatted, images have alt text, the few references I checked were good. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your feedback. I hope I've addressed your comments in a satisfactory manner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Very interesting read and very good list. Happy to support. Great job to you. – zmbro (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from NatureBoyMD

 * When first mentioning runs batted in, the abbreviation "RBI" is introduced. In the next sentence, "RBIs" is used. I know there is much discussion over the proper abbreviation, but usage here should be consistent. Either make both instances "RBI" or "RBIs".
 * The singular/plural difference was not an issue in List of Major League Baseball single-game runs batted in leaders. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll strike this, too, as a common baseball abbreviation. NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CAPFRAG, italics should not be used in the lead image caption.
 * Not an issue in the 20 other lists I've took to FL, because these italics "would apply if it occurred in the main text". —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But italics would not be used if "(left)", "(center)", and "(right)" were present in the main text. Why would they? NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I actually would use italics in the main text for those bracketed one-worded descriptions that I'm trying to signify are not part of the sentence. Just like I would if they were Latin terms, or a word I wanted to place emphasis on. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I read MOS:ITALIC and MOS:IT, they should not be italicized as they are not foreign words or needing emphasis. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but they are one-worded descriptions are not part of the sentence – that would justify italics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The recent FL List of songs recorded by the Beatles (promoted on 29 Dec 2019 – never edited by me) includes an image with a bracketed description in italics. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ASL and MOS:FNNR, the general references should be placed after the specific references.
 * I think I'm reading the MOS differently. Specifically, the part that reads, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last."  In this list, there are no explanatory footnotes (for example of such, see List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders), nor any short citations.  There are only full citations/general references.  I've just separated them into generic and specific ones. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I could see it that way. I guess you're right. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Some references are in title case (i.e. 1, 4, and 12) others are in sentence case (i.e. 2, 3, and 5). They should be formatted in consistent case.
 * I follow the exact title capitalization used in the respective articles. This has never been an issue in the 20 lists I've successfully took to FL. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITESTYLE, "...Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." (My emphasis added.) NatureBoyMD (talk)
 * And that consistent style which I am employing in every one of the articles I edit is following the capitalization given in the articles. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITESTYLE above, references should use the same citation style (i.e. APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, etc) not the various styles utilized by each publisher. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The references of the two most-recently promoted FLs – List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things and List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries (both promoted on 16 February 2020 and neither list ever edited by me) – stick to the style utilized by each publisher. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll strike this based on the same inconsistent style being used in other recently-promoted lists. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything else looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have struckout all of my comments. All-in-all this is a well-written, well-organized list, but I will refrain from supporting or opposing. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback! And no worries. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

 * Replace § with, and find another accessible symbol to replace the ^: maybe * or  . Otherwise the table looks good.
 * Replaced § with & – I find it looks better than §, which causes the cells in those entire 2 rows to be enlarged (even when superscripted). I've replaced ^ with *. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "..due to the stellar offensive performance." In this context, "stellar" is not encyclopaedic language.
 * Replaced with "prodigious". I'm open to using other alternatives (e.g. outstanding, exceptional, etc.). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Seattle Mariners is linked twice in the lead, remove the link in the third paragraph.
 * Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Prose is otherwise good.
 * Images are all appropriately licensed and tagged. Alt text is provided.
 * In the image caption of Morales: I'm not sure that "to homer" is encyclopaedic language?
 * Fixed. Changed to "… to hit home runs from both sides …". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Overall, a well-written list with very few issues, nice work. Harrias talk 11:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your comments. I hope they've all been addressed satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, nice work. Harrias  talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will be claiming points for this review. Harrias  talk 07:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! P.S. if you are planning to claim WikiCup points from this review, then it should be mentioned here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

; I think a consensus has now been reached. What do you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Source review – All of the references appear reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. For spot-checks, I looked at the box score refs for Al Kaline, Joe Pepitone, and Jim Edmonds, and all three cites supported their content. Overall, the sourcing looks solid. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source review!  and  I think all the necessary reviews have been completed and consensus has been reached.  In other words, ready for promotion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Promoted. -- Pres N  18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.