Lewis played in one professional baseball game in 1890, and his first name is completely unknown. He's interesting for sure, and showed how the 1890 Buffalo Bisons were doing at the time. Set several records of futility, and was described as a "failure" and "unfortunate" in press at the time. History hasn't been kinder to him. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most interesting articles in a while. Criteria 3 and 4 look fine, so I'll take an in-depth look at criteria 1 and 2. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh,Toodles! 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"In the second inning in which he pitched, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning, accomplished only once before in leagues considered "major" by MLB." Change to something like "In the second inning in which he pitched, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer, which was a rare feat that was accomplished only once before in leagues considered "major" by MLB."
@Therapyisgood: That's all I could find during a first readthrough as someone not immersed in baseball. Once all the comments have been addressed, ping me and I'll change my vote. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh,Toodles! 18:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The writer(s) of this article deserve great credit for what has been done with this. I know from the cricket world that there are many players like this that have one line biographies simply because nothing – not even their name – is known. But this article does an exceptional job of providing background. In fact, I wonder do we overdo the background? At times, parts of this read more like a history of the Players League, or a report of one baseball match. There might be an argument (which I would disagree with) that much of the background could be cut. But that would leave us with another dry one line article about a long-forgotten player. As it is, I think this sets the scene extremely well for the sorry tale of poor Lewis. In terms of fashioning something worthwhile (and FA-standard) out of some of the stubby sports articles out there, this really does show a way of doing it.
I fully expect to support this article, just a few quibbles. For the record, I performed a spot checked the sources, and other than one very minor issue (see below), there were no problems. I think the prose needs a little work though, as it is choppy in places and occasionally descends into a bit of "sports-speak". That should be easily fixed with a copy-edit (which I might be able to do myself if the nominator has no objections).
A few other points:
“In November 1879, in a secret meeting”: As far as I could see, the date and the secrecy are not mentioned in the ref given.
PL and MLB not defined in main body (although they are in the lead).
Per MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article." I define it in the lead so I'm not sure I have to define it again. Therapyisgood (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually better to define it again, in my opinion, but not a huge deal either way and entirely your call. Sarastro (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”After legal setbacks…” What kind of setbacks? Without going into detail, it would be good to have an idea.
”Author and baseball historian Norman L. Macht attributed Buffalo's poor record to the performance of their pitchers’: I noticed from looking at other sources that the newspapers made this link at the time; I think we can attribute the opinion to more than just one historian.
I wonder do we need the “local boy” quote when we say he is from Brooklyn; but there’s something about it that I like, so I’d be inclined to keep it in whatever.
I like the quote but I'm open to removing it. Therapyisgood (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source that makes an explicit link between Buffalo’s horrendous pitching record and the desperation of trying someone who just turned up and said “Hey, I’m a pitcher!”
Koszarek (2014) states they still needed pitchers by the time John Buckley made his debut for the team on July 15. Buckley had minor-league experience, so maybe they wised up a little, or Lewis was their rock bottom. Therapyisgood (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A shame we can't add something about this to the article. Sarastro (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As interesting as it is for period flavour, I wonder do we really need the detailed weather report? Or what the mascots were singing? If there is a way we can link it to Lewis’s terrible performance, that would be OK, but it looks a little like padding at the moment. We don't need to know everything about the game, unless it can be connected to Lewis.
I think it adds some identifiers to help a researcher to identify Lewis if they wanted to. Going through old journals, books, etc. If they knew the attendance that day was 600 and the weather was cold, they could possible match it to a journal entry or a long-lost attendance log with his name in it. The weather report might explain how Lewis pitched or the batters hit, but I'm only speculating. Therapyisgood (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's over detailing, but no problem if you'd prefer to keep it in. Sarastro (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To potentially offset any concerns that the article goes into too much background, are there any sources that could tie it all together a little? That the PL was a slightly chaotic offshoot that meant that a few players appeared in Major Leagues who were out of their depth and would not otherwise have had a chance? And maybe that a few of the teams were frankly awful (and hence allowed poor Lewis to play for them!)?
I'll keep looking but this review notes "the definitive story of this league is yet to be written", referring to the PL. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will hold fire on the prose issues (there's nothing enormously wrong, but it will require a little polish) until these have been replied to, and as I said I'm happy to give it a copy-edit myself. Sarastro (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose issues: I'm nowhere near opposing over this, but before I support, I think the prose needs a little work. In articles like this, there is always some need for "sports-speak", and getting the balance right can be tricky. My view is that this slips too much into baseball-speak, which might alienate the casual reader a little. Here are a few examples from the lead, which I think would concern non-specialists (and certainly non-specialists in the UK), or where I think we're falling short on Criterion 1a:
"a professional baseball player who played in one career game": This sounds awkward for the first sentence. Why not "played one game" or even "played once for the Buffalo Bisons"?
Looking back this gives context that he only played in one career game. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the context that I have an issue with. I don't think it's good writing for FA level. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The PL formed from a dispute after the National League (NL) implemented a reserve clause in 1879, which limited the ability of players to negotiate across teams for their salaries, and the American Association (AA) and NL passed a salary cap of US$2,000 per player in the leagues in 1885, equivalent to $49,281 in 2018.": As well as being a long sentence, this doesn't read correctly. I'm not sure a league can form from a dispute, and "from a dispute after" is lacking a little elegance. Also "to negotiate across teams for their salaries" does not seem the best way to say that they could not look for a better deal elsewhere. Why not something like: "The PL formed following a dispute between the Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players and the National League (NL); the primary issues were a reserve clause which limited the ability of players to negotiate across teams and the imposition of a salary cap."
Very well, but we still have the frankly appalling "The PL formed following a dispute after". Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite starting 4–0, on July 11, 1890, the day before Lewis played his only game in the PL, the Bisons' record stood at 17–42, which was attributed to the weak pitching on the team." Leading with "4-0" might be a little too "sports-speak" here; why not "After winning their first four games". I think that having "the day before Lewis played his only game in the PL" (we've already said he only played once) is also a little messy. What about recasting this whole thing a bit? Maybe "Despite starting the 1890 season by winning their first four games, by July 11, the Bisons' record stood at 17–42 and they were bottom of the league. This poor performance was mainly the result of weak pitching."
Kept the opening day statement which was covered by multiple sources (including Spink). But reworded a bit. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning, accomplished only once before in leagues considered "major" by MLB.": This is quite hard to follow as we have commas everywhere. Firstly, I think it would be better placed immediately after "...he played for the remainder of the game". And perhaps it could be rewritten to make it clearer? Maybe "In his second inning, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer; only one batter had previously hit two home runs in an inning in leagues considered "major" by Major League Baseball."
Starting two sentences in a row with "in" and then "in" is a bit awkward. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a suggestion, and your response does not address the fact that the lead of a prospective FA contains the incredibly awkward "to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning" which is a little tricky to parse, when this could easily be resolved, even by switching some commas to dashes. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As of May 2020" I think we could lose this from the lead without any great problem.
Actually looking back I think it gives context. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't give much context at all. I'm assuming it is still the case now? In June? And it will be in July? Removing it would avoid needing to keep updating this, or leaving the reader wondering why it was the case in May but is no longer the case in June. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"After the season, the PL folded, with teams either merging with the NL, joining the AA, or folding outright": The construction "with teams ... merging" is not the best at FA level, and it may be better to avoid using "fold" twice in one sentence. Could be just leave this as "After just one season, the PL folded"? I don't think the rest is really essential for the lead.
Very well, but we now have a sentence in the lead of a prospective FA which contains "fold" twice. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are only examples, and there are one or two more minor issue in the lead. The rest of the article seems better, although there are doubtless one or two places where it could be smoothed a little. I would say there is still a little work needed to meet criterion 1a. Sarastro (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 For the record I think most of your comments are perfunctory. I'm not in favor of cutting context from the lead, and cutting it any further would make it read choppily. Not sure how the lead isn't at FA level either, looks good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 1a: As I said at the time, these are examples only, and you are overlooking the fact that criterion 1a says "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". You may quibble on some points, but I don't think it could reasonably be argued that prose such as "The PL formed following a dispute after" or "to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning" or having "fold" twice in a sentence constitutes professional prose (and you acknowledge that non-awkward prose is essential when you point out (correctly) that having two sentences beginning "in" is not a good look). I'm not insisting on "I would have done it this way" as my suggestions were just that, and there are other ways to address the problems. But I do think as written, the article falls considerably short on 1a. And if that criterion is to mean anything at FA, I don't think dismissing a prose review as "most of your comments are perfunctory" and defending the issues as giving context is the best approach. I'm switching to oppose, as I don't wish to get into a long back-and-forth, but I'm happy to revisit if someone addresses the issues raised. This may well be promoted anyway, in which case I reiterate the point that, despite the prose issues, I still consider the research that has gone into this, and the way the background has been framed to be exemplary for a sports FA of this kind. Sarastro (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Happy to support after the copy-edit. Sarastro (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit the idea of a featured article where almost no information about the person is available intrigued me. And am quite impressed by the effort here to make this happen. I have a few comments here:
In the lead I would considering adding the uncertainty of his birth and death dates into the parenthesis with his first name. Not sure the best way to do that, but I believe it should be noted as it's an important detail (or lack thereof).
I think the lead would be improved by reorganizing it to first detail Lewis' game, and then note the issues the PL faced. I honestly think the sentences about the PL and salary cap (currently the second and third sentences of the lead) can be removed, as it is more about the PL itself and not Lewis. It kind of distracts from Lewis himself and while it gives context of why the PL exists, is fine to be kept in the background section.
I disagree. The lead is meant as a summary of the article as a whole. Information about the PL comes before the information about his game, so the information about the PL comes first in the lead, after designating why he was notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be best moved elsewhere, but I do appreciate your logic and will not hold it against the article.
For the first sentence as a whole, I think it should be more clear about the date of his one game. Consider something like "Lewis (first name unknown) was a professional baseball player who played in one career game, in 1890 with the Buffalo Bisons of the Players' League (PL), a league considered by Major League Baseball (MLB) to have been major."
In the background section, have you considered adding a note to how much $2,000 is in contemporary terms? I know some use inflation calculators, but even if you note that it was a good wage for a worker or some context, that would help.
It looks like there was a sharp difference between wage earners and salary earners. I found average US yearly pay among all workers for 1890 and 1880. Baseball players were on salary. Found salary data for Massachusetts for 1885 but not overall US salary data. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just a little confused then, are you able to add anything or not?
Annualized salaries for salaried workers in America for the late 1800s appears to be hard to come by. I also remember a source saying that one of the reasons the salary cap was passed was because the leagues didn't want the salary of ball players being higher than the average American, but I can't find it. I inflated it. I agree that something should have been added. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I just was confused by the wording. All good.
Spell out PL on the first use in background section.
Per MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article." I define it in the lead so I'm not sure I have to define it again. Therapyisgood (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I've been asked to do the above before, but the MOS may have changed since then, so all good.
I'd consider moving the biographical details of Lewis (everything from "Born in Brooklyn, New York..." on) to the following section (Players' League game). Where it stands it feels tacked on, and while it is technically background it should either be its own paragraph (which doesn't seem logical as it's only two sentences), or moved to a more appropriate spot.
"During the third inning of the game, while he pitched, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer, a feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning, only accomplished one time previously in leagues considered "major" by MLB." This can be worded better: "During the third inning of the game, while he pitched, Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer; this feat, a batter hitting two home runs in an inning, had only been accomplished one time previously in leagues considered "major" by MLB."
"Brooklyn won the game 28–16, which set a record for most combined runs scored in a single MLB game. The record stood until 1922." Can be merged: "Brooklyn won the game 28–16, which set a record for most combined runs scored in a single MLB game; this record stood until 1922."
Should spell out and link ERA and WHIP on their first use in the body of the article.
Per MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article." I define it in the lead so I'm not sure I have to define it again. Therapyisgood (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It notes Baseball-Reference doesn't qualify his record among the worst due to games played, but does MLB have a stance as well?
MLB only goes back to 1903 on their website, ESPN doesn't let you sort the other way around for ERA. MLB for 2019 notes 1.0 inning pitched per team game for ERA leaders. I can't find any other source giving him the record. Therapyisgood (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understanbable.
Other than that I think it does a solid job of explaining why someone was able to pitch for 3 innings and be a "failure". Kaiser matias (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just one question above left, but otherwise good for me. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC) That's been addressed, so supporting it now. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Bisons player–manager Jack Rowe started him for the game; " I might say "on the mound" rather than "for the game". I would end the sentence there, splitting off the remainder into a new sentence. I would make a similar substitution in the body of the article.
Isn't professional baseball coventionally traced to 1869 and the Cincinnati Red Stockings?
They appear to have been the first team to pay ten players on a roster but earlier than that other clubs had paid a salary. Added a note. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Baseball-Reference does not list Lewis as having played any other major or minor-league game over his career." I would change "game" to "games" and cut the last three words.
You should mention that Lewis got a strikeout. Also, I notice that Buffalo, not the home team, batted last. It should be explained that in the 19th century the home team did not necessarily bat last.
Well that is interesting because here does imply that Brooklyn batted in the top of the inning despite that Baseball Reference lists Lou Bierbauer as hitting his two home runs in the bottom of the third inning. Added the strikeout, though here credits him with two strikeouts. Added a note. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something could be said in one of the early sections about how PL players were paid. At least in theory.
"though his statistics do not qualify for rate comparison amongst players on Baseball-Reference because he did not meet the minimum threshold of one inning pitched per team game for the season that the site requires for ERA and WHIP comparisons across players.[28][29][30]" This is a mess, but I don't have any better ideas. It isn't just B-R that requires one inning per game played, it is what is required generally for the ERA championship.
I'm okay with it. Was thinking of cutting "for the season" but that adds some context. If anyone else can reword with the same meaning feel free. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the other comments, Lewis does not hold the record for highest season ERA (among non-qualifiers). Bob Apodaca had an ERA of infinity for the Mets in 1973 and there are doubtless more (while Apodaca was only one season, and he did not maintain it for a career, I would be somewhat surprised if there were no examples in the annals of baseball of a pitcher who allowed 1 or more earned runs without retiring anyone in his only major league appearance).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. One thing on references, you probably don't need the book that is the further reading given you cite that book as a source in footnote 9.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – This is one of the more interesting sports articles to appear at FAC in some time. It's as richly detailed as could be given the nature of the subject, and I see myself supporting once these small matters are dealt with:
Background: "two years earlier the Cincinnati Red Stockings of the National Association of Base Ball Players paid salaries to ten of its players." In cases like this where you have a plural team nickname, my suggestion is to go with the plural "their" to avoid tense confusion in the prose.
The equivalent salary provided here dates to 2018, which is fine, but does the source have comparisons that would permit a 2019 equivalent to be used now that we're in 2020?
Short answer is yes. Left a note at the talkpage of Template:Inflation since the source has updated from 2019. Will be thankful if things get updated. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine for now. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Players' League game: Since you asked for opinions on this section above, I'm in agreement with Sarastro that the information about the mascots strikes me as extraneous. Even though you may not find a source that specifically says the wind affected the pitching performances on that day, it can be reasonably inferred that it could have impacted Lewis' form, so I wouldn't mind seeing that part left in.
Cut, will be making Black mascots in early American baseball soon. Article will have its day. -- Therapyisgood (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The SABR links (refs 22, 34, and 37) are more functionally similar to Baseball-Reference (as web pages) than the newspapers and books that have convenience links here, so I would think that those three refs would have access dates like the Baseball-Reference pages do.
Has there been a source reliablity check? And an image review? Also @Sarastro1: to see if his concerns have been addressed? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still no source review that I see? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sole image, a baseball box score, is certainly out of copyright if it ever was. A case could be made that it was never copyrightable as it simply represents statistics from a baseball game in a prescribed format, and contains no originality by the publisher, but we needn't go there. Image review passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a prose oppose so thought I would take a look through. Just looking at the lead I agree with Sarastro1 that the prose does not flow smoothly; I started making notes but it's going to be quicker and easier if I just copyedit. I'll work on the lead, and if you've no objection to the changes I make I'll look at the rest of the article.
OK, back now having edited the lead. The changes I made are quite substantial and I can explain why I made them if you like. I have to say that I would oppose with the lead the way it was, though the particular way I edited the lead is not the only way to fix the problems. Also pinging Sarastro1 to see if they think the changes I've made are improvements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my viewpoint, this looks much better. I'll let Mike finish his review, but I'd certainly strike the oppose and probably support based on the changes made so far. Sarastro (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do a copyedit pass on the rest of the article -- some time today, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notes from copyediting:
In the second inning Lewis allowed two home runs to Lou Bierbauer slightly rephrased by me from your original, but without changing the word "second"; according to the body of the article this should say the third, so one or other is wrong.
The comment in note 1 about the discrepancy between the recollections and Baseball-Reference is interesting -- not an issue for this article, but it might be interesting to ask Baseball-Reference if they're aware of those reports and what the basis for saying "the bottom of the third" is. SImilarly for the discrepancy over innings played.
I'll send Sports Reference snail mail about it. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A July 13, 1890 article described Beecher as an "improvement" over Lewis as a pitcher in the game: suggest 'A July 13, 1890 article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle described Beecher as an "improvement" over Lewis as a pitcher, but Sporting Life's notes on the game say Beecher "fared but little better".' Given there is so little coverage of Lewis it would be a pity not to contrast these two short comments, and (again because the sources are sparse) we might as well attribute the sources in line.
I've completed my copyedit; let me know what you think -- and also pinging Sarastro1 again for him to read through.
One other point -- I think the article could legitimately be turned into an article on the game without much effort, with the current title redirecting to the game. The game is itself notable because of the records, as is Lewis; I think it's fine where it is but it wouldn't be OK to have a separate article on the game -- everything in this could fit in a game article with no trouble.
I'm holding back support on prose till the first point above is fixed (second vs. third); the others would not prevent me from supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better now, and I've struck my oppose. I also made one tweak myself. But I'd like a response from the nominator, and a final read-through before I switch to support. Sarastro (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does ref #13, "All our Local Clubs Won: The Cincinnatis Leave the Field, Causing a Scene" use Newspaper. Publisher. when all the other newspaper sources use just Newspaper.?
Per MOS:ELLAYOUT the link in the "External links" section should be removed, as it duplicates ref #12.
Cut. I could add other stats sites but none are as extensive as BR. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the references you use Baseball Reference, while in the main body of the article, you use Baseball-Reference. Be consistent. For reference, our Wikipedia page on the subject is Baseball-Reference.com.
Are all six occasions that ref #2 is referenced spread over the whole range of 15 pages cited? If not, please split the reference to point specifically to the page or range of pages that source each occasion this is used; the reader (namely in this instance, me trying to verify the facts) should not have to sift through fifteen pages in split ranges unless absolutely necessary.
I believe I've added specifics now. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for the moment. Harriastalk 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the subscription required templates, the OA templates, added publisher to ref 1., cut the publisher from ref 13. I am not sure who published M. Law Review so I left out a publisher, but I'm looking for one now. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the publisher on ref 2 as Marquette University Law School. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good, thanks. Harriastalk 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
"The club owners agreed to remove the salary cap in 1887, but reneged on their promise, and instead instituted a "classification system" which limited players' salaries based on their classification on a scale from A–E, with "A" players being the highest-paid.", sourced to ref #7: checks out fine.
"Despite defeating the Cleveland Infants 23–2 on Opening Day and starting the season with four consecutive wins, Buffalo had fallen to last place in the league by May 17 and, after a brief stint in seventh place, returned to last place on June 2.", sourced to ref #12: checks out fine.
"Bisons player–manager Jack Rowe started Lewis on the mound.", sourced to ref #13, checks out fine.
"Other contemporary papers covered the game: the Buffalo Courier said Lewis was "slaughtered";", sourced to ref #29, checks out fine.
Spotchecks reveal no copyvio or close para-phrasing issues, and the article accurately represents the source material. All good here now. Harriastalk 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.