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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jim Thome[edit]

Jim Thome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Go Phightins! 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thome was my favorite player growing up watching baseball, and about 18 months ago, I was determined that he was going to have a fantastic Wikipedia article. Three months later, it finally achieved good article status. Last July, I nominated it for featured status, and its first nomination failed. Since then, I have sought feedback not only from the two editors who reviewed it at the first nomination, but from a few other baseball editors, and I feel it is much improved. As such, I hereby nominate it for FAC2. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful feedback. Go Phightins! 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

All addressed. Go Phightins! 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I reviewed this article before it came to FAC, and would prefer to wait for a few other commentators before chipping in fully here. Just one thing that I noticed while re-reading, there seem to be an awful lot of sentences, particularly in the lead and first sections, which begin with conjunctions; "after" seems particularly over-used. Might be worth going through and pruning a few of these to give some more variety. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good observation, Sarastro1, and one I had not noticed. I did try to vary them a little bit. Thanks for bringing that up. Go Phightins! 19:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to make a quick comment - the Player Profile section seems a little scatter-shot at the moment. The first sentence establishes he was a power hitter but then goes into how often he was injured before talking about his career WAR and role in the steroid era. It isn't until the subsequent subsections that detail is offered about offense, defense, etc. Perhaps it would be best to scrap the opening paragraph for parts and move the sentences into the subsections that fit best? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ambivalent; on one hand, you are right that the opening paragraph does not go into much detail, but I looked at it as a "glorified lead" of the subsequent subsections ... perhaps it could just mention that he was confined to DHing as he aged, he vehemently denies using PEDs, and he is an HOF candidate, and save the specific offense/defense stuff for the subsections, and remove the WAR altogether? Go Phightins! 16:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any lead paragraph is necessary in the Player profile section. Just start right away with the Offense subsection. Move the injuries info to Defense to give perspective on how it forced him to become DH. If you want, maybe create a Career Perspective subsection to put the steroid era and WAR info - that seems less vital to me but would be perfectly fine to keep. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked per your suggestion. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review: Spotchecks not yet done. All the images are appropriately licensed and are properly used. Here are some source issues I found:

Wizardman 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. Not sure what happened with the Sports Illustrated thing. Fixed. Go Phightins! 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Newyorkadam:

Added alt text. Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a sufficient recurring theme of his philanthropic endeavors, as well as "good guy" personality, throughout the article that a separate section dedicated to philanthropic endeavors is unnecessary. Any other thoughts?
  • Maybe not an entire section, but I personally think a few sentences with references to articles about his activity with charities would improve the article. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
  • I don't really think it is necessary to link to his old website ... meh. It's not in use, and looking at it, not that relevant. Go Phightins! 20:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EricEnfermero Good job, GP. Standard disclaimer that I am an FA newbie.

EricEnfermero HOWDY! 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All concerns addressed. As for the White Sox' vs. White Sox's, I don't know, so I just changed it to Chicago's. I also sought to add some context to what you were confused about with the $20,000 ... you weren't the only one :-) Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Coemgenus
The final three are addressed; as for the first two: I don't know what to say with the second one - on my monitor, the quote appears in the middle of a line, but I agree that if the bracket was split from the opening quote, that would be aggravating. On the first, I know I ready something that said that relatively explicitly, and I added another reference to an already used citation that implies the context, but if that is not enough, I will remove it ... can't remember where I specifically read that. Thanks for your comments, Coemgenus! Go Phightins! 01:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. If anyone can figure out how to fix that typographical problem, it would be great, but it's not a problem that should keep this from being FA. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've commented on this article now a few times, and have done a little copy-editing. It is vastly improved since it came to FAC first time around, and the nominator deserves great credit for his hard work and determination. I think this meets the criteria now. The prose feels like it could still be tightened up in places, but I suspect that may be partly because of ENGVAR things which jar a little to my ear, but are not a problem as such (although "tendency to fly under the radar" could be reworded to be more encyclopaedic). It seems fairly accessible to non-fans, and is certainly comprehensive (although I'll leave it to baseball people to judge this one fully). I'd perhaps like a non-sports person to take a look and see if anything could be tightened, but in all honesty I can find little wrong now, and I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: To me, the article has shown steady improvement over a long period of time. It now reads easily, providing a comprehensive overview of Thome's life and career. While the language remains accessible to the non-fan, even the serious baseball fan would not be left wanting for significant information about the subject. On the typographical issue, would it be out of line to move the word Manuel outside of the quotes? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm okay with it myself, as it is a recent photo of his later playing career. I notice that the 1993 photo has lost some sharpness due to extreme cropping, but I don't see a great photo from his Cleveland days on Commons that could be used to replace it. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 20:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplinks addressed, and yes, this would be my first FA, however I have done 15 successful GAs, and never had any issues with close paraphrasing, so unless I inherited some that I did not check when I started this article, I don't think there should be any issues. That said, someone is more than welcome to check. Go Phightins! 16:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to think it won't be fine, but it is a ritual we like to put people through when they're new to FAC (and even older hands every so often). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
Did some season linking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
You need to be careful. In [[1997 Cleveland Indians season|1997]], the Indians results in an WP:EASTEREGG. In 1997, [[1997 Cleveland Indians season|the Indians]] would be better. In other instances try to reword the text rather than pipe the YYYY numbers. (e.g. 1999 equally problematic). Seeing the number linked might lead the reader to think it is a MLB year or year in baseball article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are the links now? Go Phightins! 20:56, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Each season that is currently piped under the word season without either Cleveland or Indians remains an WP:EASTEREGG to be confused with MLB year or year in baseball. You need to be piping under either Cleveland or Indians, preferably the YYYY Indians or YYYY Cleveland team or season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not going to go through and change every paragraph to say, for example, Thome participated in Cleveland's 1995 season. At this point, I am inclined to unlink them all. Go Phightins! 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be no harder to do it without WP:EASTEREGG than the with them. Just wondering what MOS issue Secret is talking about below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Go Phigtins!, in fact your suggestion violates WP:MOS on dates and numbers. Secret account 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis does the suggestion violate MOS?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. The series page is linked, so anyone who is interested can click. Nevertheless, I clarified in context. Go Phightins! 20:56, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Undisclosed, I believe. So no, I don't have a number. Source says "generous, long-term contract from the Indians".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • "undisclosed generous" is O.K. with proper citation. Saying he turned down an offer leaves the reader wondering why you won't say what it is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article I initially read, indicated that you were an excellent writer. However this edit introduces one of the most awkward phrases I have ever heard and it verges on being ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you have a better way of phrasing it, more power to you, but that way was completely grammatically correct. I reverted for now. Go Phightins! 10:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN still not fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not specifically, to the best of my knowledge. The article just comments that the players were reunited from over a decade ago, which seems noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Citing "Thome hit his first home run with the Twins on April 8" with Baseball-Reference.com is not what is best. BR is regarded as a passable source in a pinch. However, many reviewers question the quality of the editorial process at BR and thus on a scale of 1 to 10, BR falls somewhere in the middle. BR should only be used as a source when more reliable sources are not available. I am sure you can find an Associated Press recap of this 2010 game on ESPN.com because I rely on ESPN regularly for my citations. I don't use MLB.com, but imagine they also have a citation for this fact. Both of those sources would be 10s on a RS scale. NYTimes.com may even have a recap of the game discussing this fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Reference is a reliable source by any standards, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Secret account 19:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have about 100-200 sports WP:GAs and a handful of sports WP:FAs. This is what I have been told in the past about Sports-reference (the parent company). I have been getting this type of feedback for years, starting with my Tyrone Wheatley FA review. I can't remember my more recent ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During that review, I was literally told to replace every possible sports-reference ref with a higher quality ref.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK - a few responses: that was six years ago, there was a contradiction even then, I have never seen anyone question Baseball-Reference, other than you, right now, and the root of your objection seems to be something from pro-football-reference six years ago, and even in that FAC, Sports Illustrated confirms its reliability, even to the satisfaction of the person who initially raised the objection. So why are you upset with it being used here? Go Phightins! 19:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember having to replace citations more than I remember the support from SI. I have gotten flak from using sports-reference.com in other reviews, but I can't recall which ones. Wheatley was the first. Keep in mind what the premise of WP:RS is. WP is suppose to summarize the reliable sources and those sources are deemed reliable based on the quality of their editorial process. BR seems to be a guy who puts together information from a lot of sources (see here). There is no real evidence of an editorial process. This is why people don't always like the various sports-reference resources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the names on the list. The work of Pete Palmer, the editor of Who's Who in Baseball, a published resource that is also cited in the article, is "the basis for the Lahman database, and he has provided data to this site". The original founder of the site has a PhD in applied math or something of that nature, and the site is part of the FOX Sports network. Unless you can find some specific objections, specific pieces of information that are incorrect on the site, or otherwise specifically impeach the credibility of the resource, please refrain from calling it "adequate" or otherwise deriding its usage, as it has been a cornerstone of the WP:BASEBALL editorial process for years, and has been deemed in that project one of the leading resources for information. Specific information to the contrary is welcome; vague references to FACs from six years ago from which you cannot remember specific circumstances are not. I will seek to address your linking concerns within the next few days. Go Phightins! 02:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BR is acceptable as a source for many types of facts and many WP:MLB articles cover pre-internet subjects, it has become "a cornerstone of the WP:BASEBALL". For many topics, there is just not an easily accessible source. If we were writing about Frank Robinson, I might not even mention a reliance on BR. I have done a few GAs on pre-internet subjects and do in fact rely on BR. Hector Lopez comes to mind in fact. There aren't a lot of sources that describe him as the third outfielder in of the Mantle-Maris era Yanks the way I am able to do by pointing to BR stats. Please note that WP:RS says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." There is no claim that Sean Forman is an authoritative baseball figure. Sports-reference presents no documentation of an editorial process for any of its sites, BR included. What we have is a guy who gathers a whole bunch of other sources and assimilates them. He is basically doing what wikipedians do with reliable sources. WP would not cite another wiki as a reliable source. A diligent assembler of good sources is not a "reliable publication process". Because the sources are so good and much of the resulting content is unlikely to be wrong or misleading, we accept it in most cases. However, when possible we should defer to more reliable sources. The first B-R fact that I saw when I glanced over at the article moments ago was "He hit a solo home run in the AL Central Tiebreaker game, which proved to be the difference as the White Sox defeated the Minnesota Twins, 1–0." This is a 2008 Wild Card playoff game. Yes, you could source this with the current B-R.com reference. However, there are a dozen other sources you could use. You could go to ESPN and use either the box score or the Associated Press recap. Using either of these would put the reader in a tabbed environment with the other easily accessible. You could source it with the MLB.com recap. The second or third place I would look would be the New York Times. There are a bunch of other sources that you could check, including NBC Sports, CBS Sports, CNN/SI, etc. Some of these will also rely on the Associated Press as ESPN does and others will have their own writers. However, all of these would be source with both "a reliable publication process" and "authors who are regarded as authoritative". The BR source is in truth neither "a reliable publication process" nor "authors who are regarded as authoritative". Thus, as I said before I would pursue replacing as many BR refs as possible with Associated Press recaps at ESPN, MLB.com or NYTimes.com. For preinternet facts, I would not press you, bu tin this case, there is little reason to relegate ourselves to BR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • EricEnfermero has done some terrific work adding sources (thanks Eric!); let me know if you find other specific omissions in terms of sources ... I think the reason some of them are missing sources is that, at one point, this article relied predominantly upon a JockBio biography, which has since been removed. Over the last several months, I have been replacing those, but obviously have missed some. Thanks for pointing that out, TonyTheTiger. Go Phightins! 17:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, I would ask that you yourself go back through the entire professional career section. Look at each sentence and ask yourself it is a fact that likely has a story online in a WP:RS. If so, if the fact currently does not have a WP:IC, find one. I really should not have to run through each paragraph like I did for the one I presented. Everything for the last 10 or 12 years certainly should have an online story. I am pretty sure ESPN game recaps from the Associated Press go back about that far. The writing is excellent. However, in terms of WP:V, the article has a lot of room to improve.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Injuries shortened his 1992 campaign,"
  • "Thome had his first career multi-home run game"
  • Cited with home run log ... easily discerned from there; Google News archive, however, is no longer particularly accessible, so alternate news article would be difficult to ascertain (I perused HighBeam for a moment, and did not find any)
  • The daily Associated Press American League round up is a much better source. Something is wrong with one of the citations for this fact. It seems to be broken. However, what you need to track a lot of older facts is a way to find the daily American or National League roundup from the Associated Press. It seems that the Los Angeles Times is one of the newspapers that prints this roundup daily and has online archives going back to the early 1990s. Each day you are looking for a link like this. Then find whichever roundup you need. Probably any fact notable enough to be in the WP article should be in the AP daily league roundup. E.g., see his 1st multi-homer game recap. If you use the league roundup, we don't have to deal with how WP defines a WP:RS. No one is going to question anything from the AP in the LA Times. By the early or mid 2000s you can find every game recap on ESPN.com--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was not until 1995 that the Indians' success led to a playoff berth." I am sure there are newspaper stories that say this was the Indians first playoff appearance in X years.
  • Not really relevant how long it has been since they made the playoffs; he wasn't on the team the last time, but cited to Who's Who in Baseball anyway.
  • "Thome led the team by hitting .314 with 25 home runs and 73 RBIs"
I will begin to lean more strongly on the oppose if this article does not pursue WP:V with WP:ICs from WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few more citations have been added. Phightins is Gone (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck: I checked the following sources: 3, 4, 21, 41, 50, 60, 78, 102, 105, 115, and 137, chosen randomly excluding the first two. The duplication detector showcased nothing of worry, but more importantly everything noted in the article is seen in the references, and written in the writer's own words. The only nitpick I have is that i see that Joe Posnanski's article on Thome at 40 is in the article a few times. Technically, it's referenced by each of the four Sports Illustrated pages so it's okay as is in my book, but if anyone else has an issue then that might need tweaking. Either way I'm entirely fine with how the well-cited article as is on that front. Wizardman 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a plethora of inline citations in this article, and I have read through it several times trying to discern exactly what you want cited, and I think perhaps some of the confusion may be that multiple sentences are supported by a single ref, at least one of which is offline, which may cause confusion. I do find your prevailing sentiment of "I am here from WP:CHICAGO to save Wikipedia from promoting a crappy FA" to be rather unnecessarily unnecessary (I will stipulate that isn't exactly brilliant prose there ) ... this article has been through a rigorous GA review, a PR and a de facto second PR, and this FAC, which has included several commentators, including one who did a source spotcheck, that have not shared your concerns, so I am rather torn as to an appropriate course of action in this situation, as you seem to be the only one that thinks one must cite that the sky is blue. Fine, tag them with fact tags, but that really borders on disruptive. You are more than welcome to list on this page what you think needs cited (yes, I know there are 4 items above at which I have not yet had time to look), but introducing tags throwing the credibility of an already good article (see Talk:Jim Thome/GA1 - it was hardly a rubber stamp) is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 10:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits by EricEnfermero were a step in the right direction. The subsequent edits have not really helped out to much. If you don't see things that are not WP:V, then I will have to ((fact)). You can try to waive the WP:BLUE wand if you like when I do, but I am pretty experienced at GA. Obviously you can remove all the ones that are cited in a broader WP:IC. It might be better if you had Eric go through all the other sections and do what he did in the section that I pointed out. Obviously he understood the relevance of WP:V, even if you don't. WP:BLUE has little to do with this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more citation work done; for the record, for edits that have "not helped out to [sic] much", you have stricken several of your concerns. Go Phightins! 20:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ESPN articles provide the date of the game, but not the date of the recap, which could be either the date of the game, or the date of the wee hours of the subsequent morning. Go Phightins! 21:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Game date is O.K. since even night games start at 7 or 8 local time. Not too many games go past 4 or 5 hours and recaps are up on line within 10 or 15 minutes after the game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, though I know for the Phillies.com recaps, Todd Zolecki usually posts them at about 1:00 AM (e.g., [http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_04_14_atlmlb_phimlb_1&mode=recap_home&c_id=phi this one was posted at 1:45 the next day). It seems to me that speculating on when the report might have been posted is not necessary because a) in line, the citations are generally included after mentioning a date, and b) if the reader clicks on the link, they will see the day that the recap is recapping, and can go from there; some ESPN articles say "date published" on the right side under the title, but these do not, so I am inclined to leave it go, unless that's a sticking point for you. Go Phightins! 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MLB.com may have a different deadline structure than the Associated Press. Usually within about 15 minutes there is a sketch of the recap. It might take an hour or so for the final version of the full story, but it is acceptable to use the game date, IMO. That is what I always use. BTW edit summaries like this that say "before I'm told this needs a citation" present a really bad attitude. You are not adding citations so that I am happy. We add ICs so that the reader is happy when he can WP:V. You are not adding citations to make me happy with your FA nomination today. You are adding them so that every person who reads the article going forward can WP:V things from a WP:RS. This is not a you vs. me thing. This is a you and the reader thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the edit summary ... I was just somewhat frustrated. That citation, frankly, is probably extraneous, as the subsequent citations cover it, but the impression I got reading your earlier comments was that every sentence needed a citation immediately after it, which was the frustrating part for me. Perhaps this was a false impression, but a couple of the things you previously mentioned were cited in subsequent sentences, so I was not sure. I will add the game dates as dates for the references. Go Phightins! 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I added the dates. I have read through the article three times now looking for things that might possibly need citations, and have not found much. At this point, go ahead and compile a list (here preferably rather than fact tags, but I suppose whichever, as I am free for another couple of hours and can remove them in short order) of what still needs cited. Also, I have tried to tweak a few season links, but am struggling to work the year, team and "season" all into a sentence for a few of the links without sounding choppy and awkward. Go Phightins! 22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a couple of hours please fix some of the older refs too. Many of them also need dates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the ones I caught. Go Phightins! 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at the footnotes, I saw bunches of them like 25, 26, 27, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with 25-27? They all have dates, and look like they have necessary information to me? I caught several that were missing dates, and I am sure someone who has worked on as many GAs and whatnot as you can empathize with the nauseating feeling that comes after looking at a reflist for a while, so I got Wizardman to look in IRC, and he found a few more, so I believe all have dates, at least that we caught. Go Phightins! 10:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about 25-7. Your box scores don't have publisher dates, also what about 40.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 94 is obsolete. 114 may be as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
119 supports 19 not 20.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you update these numbers? I think I removed what used to be 94, but am unsure. Which one is 114, 119, and 120 now? Go Phightins! 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the history and find the proper version.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel inclined to do that, as nothing is jumping out at me in the references in that area right now. If you still have a concern with those references, please be specific about which ones they are. Go Phightins! 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously saying that you think it is my responsibility to keep track of what the numbers are. At 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC) I complained about 40, 94, 114 and 119. You have fixed one of those and responded to several other concerns often by adding refs. Thus, three of these remain unaddressed. All you have to do is go to the history tab in Thome's article and find the last version before this time and see which references were at those 4 numbers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think when those reference numbers change, since you best know what you are talking about, it might be mildly courteous to just repeat them with new numbers rather than send me guessing into the article history ... some times on this site appear in EDT for me, while others in UTC because of something I set at one point that I really should unset, but anyway, the numbers do not appear to match up for me, so I was merely asking if you still remembered what references you had concerns with. Go Phightins! 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
40 is now 42, 114 now 118, 119 now 123.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it now. Go Phightins! 02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that this, which is in the neighborhood of 40, is a concern, but I don't know why, as it is appropriately cited, and is static. I guess 114 might be the ESPN scouting report, which, though I am an ESPN insider, I cannot view for some reason at the moment. Whaddya think of Fangraph's reliability? I can try there ... I have no idea what your issue with this is. Are you talking about this? That would make sense, and I see what you are saying. Fixed. Go Phightins! 13:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, I see your post, and will take another look later this evening (hopefully). I am off to Maundy Thursday services at church now, and we are eating afterwards, though, so it might not be until tomorrow. Are there any other facts in the article that you think need citations? Go Phightins! 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where we stand from TonyTheTiger's perspective
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More