# Talk:1999 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game

Didn't use it, but there was a great New York Times story from the period about Mets fans eating Tums during the game because the season had been so nerve-wrecking. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does a single game have its own article? -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it satisfies GNG thoroughly. It single-handedly decided a playoff spot. These articles have existed for a long time. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the lead, you might want to say where the Astros are from. I mean, I know they're from Houston, but how 'bout your non-baseball reader. Also, you need to have a consistency, since you mention the Arizona Diamondbacks and Atlanta Braves by city and team name.
Good call, fixed.
Of course, I'm a baseball fan. ;)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Throughout the article, please link "Gerry Davis", "Michael Tucker", and "Mark Lewis" to their correspondence articles, as at the moment they stand out as disambiguations. In the lead, "The game took place on October 4, 1999 between" ---> "The game took place on October 4, 1999, between", commas after dates, if using MDY. In the Background section, per here, "August 1st" ---> "August 1", "September 30th" ---> "September 30". In the Aftermath, "...with the decisive game of the NLCS scoring the highest ratings for any LCS broadcast since 1993", I'm assuming that "LCS" is "League Championship Series", and if so, this needs to be noted.
All done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
In Reference 28, "Sports Illustrated" should be in the "work" format of the source, since it's a magazine publication.
All done. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Check.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Staxringold for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)