Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters


 * 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009.

List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters

 * Nominator(s): KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on! 

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. It is fully referenced and contains appropriate images and content. Disclaimer: The list contains only 9 items, but contains notes about each unique no-hitter. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- Before I review, I want other reviewer's input on this list on the 10-item limit rule. Notes are added, but this is a list that can be built upon (since its a list in the present and not a list in the past) and the notes don't really add to the entries to exemplify it from the rule; this from my standpoint. But if other disagree, I would be happy to review.-- TRU  CO   23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I was convinced that its exempt.-- TRU  CO   16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Review from 
 * Lead
 * A no-hitter is officially recognized by Major League Baseball only "when a pitcher (or pitchers) retires each batter on the opposing team during the entire course of a game, which consists of at least nine innings". -- Since the MLB is spelled out earlier, use the acronym form here while adding it in parenthesis next to the first occurrence.
 * As I've explained before, I don't use acronyms unless completely necessary. Here, I don't deem it necessary. If we are featuring a professional standard of writing, per WP:FL?, we shouldn't be using acronyms anyway. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the MOS states that acronyms are acceptable so its a standard of writing per WP:FL?. But its not a hard-rule, so I'll leave it alone.-- TRU  CO   18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The largest margin of victory in a Phillies no-hitter was ten runs, in a 10–0 win by Chick Fraser. -- Add "a" before victory.
 * "Margin of victory" is a distinct term and shouldn't be altered. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As defined by Major League Baseball, "[in] a perfect game, no batter reaches any base during the course of the game." -- Acronym form.
 * See above. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The longest interval between Phillies no-hitters was between the games pitched by Lush and Bunning, encompassing a total of 58 year, 1 month, and 20 days. -- year --> "years"
 * Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph can be merged with the second-to-last paragraph.
 * Merged higher to keep perfect game topic separate. Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Key
 * I think just the color or just the symbol suffices to explain the perfect game, I think both don't need to represent it.
 * I would prefer to use only the color, but that's prohibited per WP:ACCESS, so I added the symbol. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Table
 * Why is the umpire listed? The lead doesn't establish any notability for them for "no-hitters".
 * Since the viability of a no-hitter rests on the strike zone set by the umpire, such as it does in high-strikeout games, the umpire is an integral part of the no-hitter being completed.
 * Well explain this in the lead because it leaves the reader (like me) in question as to why they are in the list.-- TRU  CO   18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The notes should have the first word capitalized.
 * Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you are listing the notes in each column it would be best to add bullets to them.
 * That's definitely doable but I don't quite understand the reasoning behind it. Could you explain further? KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Appearance purposes. Since you are listing, a good way to present a list is through numbering or by bullets IMO.-- TRU  CO   18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * References
 * In the general reference, why is the work field have ESPN.com and the publisher ESPN, they have no distinct difference so its not necessary to state the work. The same applies to other references from ESPN.
 * As with List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers, the organization ESPN and the website ESPN.com are distinct entities, just like Retrosheet, Inc (the company) and Retrosheet.org (the site). This is similar to the TV network MSNBC and the website msnbc.com. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand Retrosheet, but I don't understand ESPN. ESPN is the name of the company and their official website is named after them so there is no need for the work field. I mainly write professional wrestling articles and I've gotten 3 to FA status, and when I source to the official company like World Wrestling Entertainment, I don't write WWE.com in the work field because its their website.-- TRU  CO   18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that. Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref #5|The work is from the Phillies but the publisher is the MLB. So that should be fixed accordingly.
 * Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-- TRU  CO   16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.-- TRU  CO   03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This one is a very hard one to decide whether or not it is an exception. In my opinion, a no-hitter in a season only occurs 1-4 (IMO approx.) times a season. that's around 1-4 times per 30 seasons for a team. According to calculations, the Phillies should get one in 2009 or the 2010s. In my conclusion, I think the user should wait until 2013, OR if more people support, then I will support the community's decision. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Leaning to oppose  I oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list per the 10-item limit rule. I see no reason whatsoever why this list should be exempt from the rule. That said, I can be persuaded if the nominator can justify his/her reasoning. — Chris!  c t 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My reasoning behind this is simple: a list of this length is perfectly able to satisfy all of the written FLC requirements. The 10-item rule is an unwritten guideline, however strictly it made be adhered to or not. Admittedly, this is not the format that I originally wanted to use for this list; the format I desired would have made this list itself much longer and more likely to ignore this guideline. However, the list features professional standards of writing (Cr.1), has an engaging lead and a title which clearly defines the scope of the list and explanatory material for those outside the baseball community (Cr.2), comprehensively covers said scope (Cr.3), is easy to navigate and sortable (Cr.4), complies with the MOS (hopefully so far, Cr.5), makes use of appropriate color and images (Cr.6), and is as stable as any other list in the present (Cr.7). I don't know how much more clear I can be. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that any list with 9 entries are allowed for FLC? I'm going to notify WT:FLC about this. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 04:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said by any means. I simply think that a 10-item minimum is arbitrary, especially if the content meets the requirements laid out in WP:FL?. As I said, I doubt that we would be having this discussion if I were able to put this list in my intended format. If consensus on this issue goes toward opposing this list, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination at this time until I can locate the proper offline sources to make this list into my preferred format. However, I see no valid reason why it could not at least go through a nomination process. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  13:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think User:Dabomb87's comment on WT:FLC really convince me that this list should be exempt from the rule. I no longer oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list.— Chris!  c t 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Chris!  c t 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment
 * What is sourcing the "note" column? I think some items (e.g. Game one of a doubleheader) need a citation.
 * The reference given in the column. If you look at the link for the Bunning game, there is a large (1) after the box score (also in the title of the article) indicating this. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the reference given in the column can verify everything in the "note" column. Just making sure.— Chris!  c t 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, are you going to answer my question?— Chris!  c t 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was a question, I thought it was just a statement. The answer is yes. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * General references --> General (in the "references" section; the heading already tells readers that the section is about references)
 * In-text citations --> Specific (in the "references" section)
 * To the two above: the current style is acceptable; see Philadelphia Phillies seasons. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this is not a big deal.— Chris!  c t 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything else looks good— Chris!  c t 19:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from --  SRE.K.A.L. 24 [c]
 * Please fix the disambiguation links (toolbox).
 * The middle image is not sourced.
 * Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

--  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could mention that Jim Bunning is the only one to have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

--  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Check. Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should also be noted on the table. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from --  SRE.K.A.L. 24 [c] (continued)
 * Why not have a background for pitchers who were left-handed?
 * Because it's not necessary, and because there exists the possibility that a player may be both left-handed and throw a perfect game. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you also metnion who was the opposing team on the table?
 * I could, but the table is already cramped on a 1024x768 monitor (how I am viewing it now). KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

--  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Well done on the list. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * "Also known in their early years as the "Philadelphia Quakers",[1] pitchers for the Phillies" The way this is phrased, it sounds like only the pitchers were known as the Quakers.
 * I can't think how to rephrase it, but I want to mention the Quakers since Ferguson's no-hitter was thrown during that era. Suggestions are welcome. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "encompassing a total of 58 years"
 * Done. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out… [the umpire's judgment on such matters] is final." WP:PUNC logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotes.
 * "is defined as that area over homeplate (sic) the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap." Same comment.
 * (two above) The periods are both part of the quotes; they are included from the source.


 * "a special type of no-hitter" Would "a special subcategory" work better?
 * Much, thanks. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "and stands as a defining moment in National League history" Not really necessary, let the facts stand for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed, though it makes the paragraph look stubby. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.