# Talk:Philip Humber's perfect game

I live in New York, which gave me the NYY @ BOS broadcast.  However, Fox cut away from that game to see the ending of the perfect game (later coming back to the New York @ Boston game after completion).  I want to say that the last paragraph in the intro section is false, but I don't want to remove it, as I am only one person without proof of other areas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowler225 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 

Would it be a copyvio to just copy in the following content (from http://www.etfinalscore.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2943&catid=7&Itemid=393 or edited from http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=320421112&teams=chicago-white-sox-vs-seattle-mariners):
Mariners First: Chone Figgers grounds out, first baseman Paul Konerko to pitcher Phil Humbert; Dustin Ackley grounds out, second baseman Gordon Beckham to first baseman Paul Konerko; Ichiro Suzuki lines out to shortstop Alexei Ramirez.
Mariners Second: Justin Smoak strikes out swinging; Kyle Seager strikes out swinging; Jesus Montero strikes out swinging.
Mariners Third: Miguel Saunders pops out to first baseman Paul Konerko; Miguel Olivo strikes out swinging; Munenori Kawasaki pops out to third baseman Brent Morel in foul territory.
Mariners Fourth: Chone Figgers flies out to left fielder Dayan Viciedo; Dustin Ackley lines out to right fielder Alex Rios; Ichiro Suzuki strikes out swinging.
Mariners Fifth: Justin Smoak pops out to shortstop Alexei Ramirez; Kyle Seager flies out to center fielder Alejandro De Aza; Jesus Montero flies out to left fielder Dayan Viciedo.
Mariners Sixth: Miguel Saunders flies out to center fielder Alejandro De Aza; Miguel Olivo pops out to second baseman Gordon Beckham; Munenori Kawasaki bunt grounds out, pitcher Phil Humbert to first baseman Paul Konerko.
Mariners Seventh: Chone Figgers strikes out swinging; Dustin Ackley pops out to shortstop Alexei Ramirez; Ichiro Suzuki grounds out to first baseman Paul Konerko.
Mariners Eighth: Justin Smoak strikes out swinging; Kyle Seager lines out to left fielder Brent Lillibridge; Jesus Montero grounds out, second baseman Gordon Beckham to first baseman Paul Konerko.
Mariners Ninth: Miguel Saunders strikes out swinging; John Jaso, pinch-hitting for Miguel Olivo, flies out to right fielder Alex Rios; Brendan Ryan, pinch-hitting for Munenori Kawasaki, strikes out swinging catcher A.J. Pierzynski to first baseman Paul Konerko.

Seems like it would be. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. COPYVIO does not apply to facts. If the terms are proper baseball ones you could pretty well copy word for word.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Something seems off about his story.  What do people think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  07:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of it, other than that Beavan was wrong. Since Beavan is younger than Humber, it's possible they did have the same HS coach. He could've gone from Carthage to Irving in between their HS careers. Perhaps when his coach compared Beavan to Humber, Beavan assumed Humber went to the same school. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I see you have hidden the following text: According to a story in the The Bellingham Herald, Beavan claimed that both players had the same high school coach and both players played in Irving, Texas.

I have no problem with this decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  14:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Can the final score be added to the lead, and the umpires names be moved to another section? I am more a hockey fan until the Canucks lost again, so I wouldn't feel right editing a baseball article.

Final score added to the lead. You can edit any article you want. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add a sentence with a reference to a YouTube video that showed that Brendan Ryan did not check his swing. But it was immediately reverted by Muboshgu due to "synthesis", but I don't understand the reasoning. The definition of synthesis is: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I didn't combine material, it was a video that clearly showed that Ryan went around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYNTH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi5LLKahwOQ
Uw badgers (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You watch a video and determine that he went around, but what if I were to watch it and decided that I think he checked his swing? There is no "definitive" yes/no on a call like that. Umpiring is subjective, and they make mistakes. It's rare that people, including the umpire, all acknowledge a blown call (Armando Galarraga is the exception). All we can say about Ryan's at bat is that he attempted to check his swing, the umpire ruled that he went around, and Ryan didn't object to it when asked in the clubhouse. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
However, Ryan clearly vehemently objected while on the field. If you watch the MLB.TV recording of the game, you can see shots of him jawing at the umpire and violently throwing his helmet to the ground. It is true that the call belongs 100% to the umpire; as one umpire said at some time, some place, when asked "What is that pitch?" replied, "It ain't nothin' until I call it."
Poihths (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philip Humber's perfect game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 16:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll give this one a look as well, just because. Probably tonight, but maybe in a day or so since you said no rush. As a preliminary note, however, sources #11 and #30 are dead. Canadian Paul 16:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

11 replaced. Looking for 30--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  17:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
30 swapped out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  17:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:

Essentially none of the information in the lead is in the body and vice-versa, a violation of WP:LEAD, as the lead must summarize the contents of the body and no new information should be included in the lead that isn't present in the body.
I have moved everything from the LEAD to the main body that was not already in the body. I will summarize this in the near future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  04:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I have summarized the article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Under "Background", first paragraph, "Ironically his mound opponent, Blake Beavan, was a 2007 Texas high school player of the year. Beavan threw a quality start for Seattle." Aside from the fact that this isn't ironic, that statement seems a little bit POV to me. Additionally, I don't really feel that this qualifies as "background" for the game, since it happened during for the game so, if Beavan's quality start is important to the article, it should be moved to another section.
I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about this, so it's not really a GA issue, but the second paragraph of "Background" is fairly inaccessible to anyone not familiar with baseball. For example, a casual fan may not understand what is meant by "Humber stayed on his pitching schedule by throwing on the side."
addressed by RedSoxFan2434 (talk · contribs) with these edits. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Under "Background", third paragraph, "The New York Mets did not have a no-hitter through their first 51 seasons." It hasn't yet been mentioned that Humber was a former member of the Mets in the article, so this statement seems completely irrelevant at first read and really disrupts the flow. The whole "Background" section is a bit choppy and reads more like "fact after fact" rather than a narrative flow, but this is the most jarring part.
addressed by RedSoxFan2434 (talk · contribs) with these edits. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't really see the purpose of those block quotes and they don't appear to add anything to the encyclopedic quality of the article. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content we should be limiting non-free content as much as possible and, if these quotes can't be justified, they should be removed.
Are you of the belief that the blockquotes are from published or paywalled sources? On what grounds is the content non-free?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess I'm more concerned about what the purpose of the quotes is. There are probably dozens of free pictures of Humber, but we wouldn't include every last one in the article, only as many as would enhance the article by providing visually informative content. Similarly, a blocked-out side quote must enhance an article in some way to justify an article. I'm not certain what the purpose of the quotes are, they seem a little incongruous with the article content, but I'm not difficult to convince otherwise. If they can be justified for inclusion, then their "free" status is irrelevant (after all, it's only two quotes). Canadian Paul 21:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The quotes are unique and about his feelings on this achievement. I think they are on point. I am only worried about what section they belong in. I think the one in the first section should be in the third section.  Other than that, I don't see an issue, since they are (free) quotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  13:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The "Media reception" section is essentially a bulleted list of facts that has been compressed into a paragraph. It needs to replace the "fact after fact" style with a narrative flow.
I have tried to rearrange it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  03:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
More of a curiosity than a GA point, but what's the reason for the "Previous no-hitter experience" section a) not being a subsection of the "Background" section and b) going (more or less) in reverse chronological order? I don't think everything always has to be chronological, but there should be a good reason to do it differently. Also in this section, the phrase "flirted with a no-hitter" is used twice in one paragraph. Perhaps there would be a better way to restate this later on to avoid the repetition?
Moved to background chronologically.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
In terms of completeness, and I'm very open to discussion on this one based on the types of sources that are available, I feel like the article is lacking in some aspects. For example, in the "Background" section, I don't think that it would be excessive to have at least a paragraph on Humber summarizing who he is and any high points of his career. Similarly, is there anything that can be said about the game itself other than the final inning? Obviously you don't have to go through it batter by batter, but in today's world of play-by-play sports coverage, surely there are more highlights to mention as the game went on?
Regarding a perfect game, the last out is always of importance, especially in this case because of the nature of the call. Usually, the only other outs of the 27 the pitcher records that really matter are the ones that were almost hits, except that a fielder made a great play to prevent the batter from reaching base. Like in Mark Buehrle's perfect game, the catch made by Dewayne Wise. I'll read the recaps to see if there was anything like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Wait, it's already mentioned that the closest a batter got to a hit was Dustin Ackley. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I feel like this article is fairly far away from GA Status at this time, however, I'm willing to give it a chance on a seven day hold if it is believed that the necessary improvements can/will be made in that time. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Once these concerns have been dealt with, I will review the article again and point out additional changes needed to comply with Wikipedia's Good Article criteria. Canadian Paul 23:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I see there's some collaboration going on with this article - that's good! Whenever it is requested that I take another look at the article, someone please leave an explicit message to that effect underneath the comments. Canadian Paul 21:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm seeing deficits and ways to improve on them. I think TTT and anyone else helping can get this up to code. I'll let you know when I have a question. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, first of all, what do you think of the changes I've just made? How's the layout? – Muboshgu (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a fresh look now and update the review. Canadian Paul 20:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well the article is certainly improved. In terms of layout, I think that it addresses a lot of my earlier concerns. It seems that all of my previous points have been addressed, although I'll take a closer look at the introduction and prose flow once I do a proper review. Regarding #5, I'm still not 100% on the quotes, but that seems a bit outside of the scope of GA, so there's no need to drag out discussion on that. #8 seems alright now, a good balance of detail. So at this point the citation tags need to be addressed, but it looks like you added them, so you know that already. I'll give it another copyedit when you're ready too. Canadian Paul 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The citation tags are addressed. I think we're ready for another run through. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I went through it and did a copyedit, but it looks like it is ready for GA Status! "The game was broadcast on Fox, with Mariners' broadcaster Dave Sims and Eric Karros on the call and its duration was two hours, seventeen minutes" in the first paragraph under "The game" might be improved with a citation, but overall I do not believe that falls in the realm of "material likely to be challenged", as it is fairly intrinsic to the event, so it's fine for now. Therefore, I will be passing the article. Congratulations and thanks to all for their hard work. Canadian Paul 16:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=MLB Advanced Media for references to MLB.com, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to  upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher).  I'll also remove redundant 'location' parameters (e.g. work=New York Times|location=New York), as suggested by the template's usage guidelines. Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)