# Talk:Wilbur Wood

I removed this item that was tacked onto the paragraph about Wood's doubleheader start.  Wood did start two consecutive games in 1976, but like the others mentioned below, these were due to flukes of scheduling (in this case, several rainouts) and had nothing to do with his endurance, which was the point of the paragraph.  

In 1976, he started two consective games on two consecutive days for the last time in his career. No pitcher started two consecutive games again until Freddie Garcia with the Seattle Mariners in September, 2001, however, there were scheduled games in between that were cancelled immediately following the September 11 attacks so that there were 7 days between his starts. The only other pitcher since Wood to start two consecutive regularly scheduled games was Jose Contreras for the Chicago White Sox in July, 2006, though he too did not do it on consecutive days, but took advantage of the 5 day All-Star break to do it.
I also removed the parenthetical comment on this item.  Wood did not start a "significant number" of times in 1968.  He started twice.

Set the single-season record for games pitched in 1968 (88), which has been surpassed by 12 people through 2004, and tied by 2 others (however, all of them were relief pitchers, whereas a significant number of Wood's games in 1968 were starts)
BlongerBros 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wilbur Wood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 15:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


### Lead
If the stats are sourced in the article, they don't need to be sourced in lead/infobox
Is mentioning that his record was broken the next year necessary (especially in the lead!)
Yes, because otherwise, people will think he still holds the record (or those who know better will think the article is wrong)! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Would they? It says he gained a record in X year, and you can expand in the body of the article. It seems too much detail for the lead. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:LEDE: "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." If this is not mentioned, those people will erroneously assume Wood still holds the record. I'm not taking this info out of the lead. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
starting a career-high 49 in 1972 - I was confused for a few minutes before realizing it was 49 games. I know it seems obvious, but could the word be added?
The other way - is it correct to be repeating "pitched" in also pitched a career-high 376+2⁄3 innings pitched ?
Probably not incorrect, but I changed first pitched to recorded to make it read better. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
though, as he put it, he was somewhat "gun-shy" upon his return. needs a citation
As you said in your first comment, cite unnecessary because it is sourced in the article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Except this is a direct quotation. We have to know where is it coming from. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:LEDE, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."  As a result, I added the cite. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Wood's 90 wins from 1971–74 were the most in the major leagues. - this reads awkward, could the phrasing be improved?
Lead might be a little long for the article - the article is quite long, but the lead is also pushing how big they are accepted for the longest of articles, which this is not. It is written in a very narrative style and there are extraneous details and elements of style that could be removed.
I don't think it's too long, especially for a long article. Willie Mays, another long GA, is about 100 words longer. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Well it is. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
"You can say 'Well it is' all you want, but I have shown through argument and example that it is not too long. I'm not changing it. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


### Illustration
Infobox satis
Only one image in article (PD) besides infobox - feels sparse - are there any more, even related?
None of Wood. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
As I said, they can be related. Kingsif (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Images aren't required for GAs, but I agree that they look better with them, so I added a couple more. As long as you don't mind them not being of Wood. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


### Copyright
Two images, both PD
There is a lot of quotation from the White Sox "Conversation with Wilbur Wood" source. While this is all attributed and in quotation marks, it equals over 75% of the original conversation, which is too much to be directly quoting. As an interview, spoken word is more on-the-fence than written text, but it's still a lot. Is it possible to rephrase some of the quotations in original words?
Rephrased some and took others out, so it should be better now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The rest of the earwig copyvio check looks clear.


### Early life
"nee" → "née"
Since there is unlikely to be confusion in the context, could "Young Wilbur" just be written as "Wood"?
I disagree. Last Wilbur mentioned was a different one. Young Wilbur is better to avoid misreading. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The previous Wilbur mentioned, however - as I said - is not identified as Wood. I didn't suggest replacing "Young Wilbur" with "Wilbur", did I? Kingsif (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Good point. So there are two "Woods" mentioned in the previous sentence, neither of which are this one. I think "Young Wilbur" is necessary to avoid possible misreading. I'm not changing it. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Both of the Wood boys feels too colloquial, perhaps just "The brothers"?
would play some sport year round - 1. "year round" → "year-round", 2. I assume this means that throughout the year, depending on the season, they would play different sports? Because "some sport" is a little old-timey news-reporter-y, and "sports" may be more appropriate.
I think all of the parentheses in the opening paragraph are unnecessary - the sports don't need to be explained (if someone is stuck on what a defenseman is, the wikilink is there) and "his junior year" would fit in plain prose
Took the parentheses out for style but left the sports in. I know the positions are linked, but this way, one doesn't need to leave the article to find out what sport it is. Makes it easier to read. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
about 50 colleges wanted the prospect for one sport or another - perhaps explain that Wood is "the prospect", for non-sporting readers (who might stumble upon the article). Also, "one sport or another" is casual and has the same feeling as "some sport" mentioned above - is there another way to phrase this?
Is the Hemond He was a chubby little guy quotation necessary? I don't think it adds much to the statement that Hemond was unimpressed, but even if you wanted to give the reason, that could be done more succinctly in prose.
Yes. It additionally helps describe Wood as well. "He was a chubby little guy" is succinct. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Boston, however, - would this not be "The Red Sox"?
The Wood quotation about Boston and money needs some contextualizing before launching into it like a regular sentence; at the moment it's not integrated, nor introduced.
Redid sentence order; should be clearer now. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I would think that reportedly from $25,000 to $50,000 should be "between ... and ...", unless the bonus ranged depending on something. I.e. if it was a fixed bonus sitting somewhere in that region but unknown, it should be "between..."
My way's more technically correct, because it might have been $25,000 or $50,000 exactly. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


### Overall
@Sanfranciscogiants17: Still working but left some replies to you. Kingsif (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 Fail: nominator refuses to cooperate with review process and has firmly indicated that they will not make edits which, in my understanding of the criteria, are needed to meet GA. In the spirit of this being a review, I will likely add more comments as suggestions for improvement, and indicate which I believe are requirements. But this isn't GA, and with the nominator's attitude, won't be any time soon. A damn shame for something that's been stifling so long. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy to make edits that improve the article. Your suggestions detracted from its quality. Looking forward to getting this looked at by someone who actually understands the GA criteria. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
You refuse to improve the lead. Nobody who understands the criteria will pass it. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, Uninvolved editor here who was about to start a new review and wanted to see what the hang-up was in this one ... is your principal complaint really about the length of the lead section? Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article of 30,000+ characters (and this article is at 38,000ish) should have a lede of three to four paragraphs ... I see a lede here of four paragraphs. I can understand a quibble here and there about a detail, but a declaration that "well it is" too long when the MOS simply says something different strikes me as a rather strident, perhaps even unconstructive, conclusion. I'll take this over if you're really going to fail the article over that, but I'd encourage you to perhaps have another look. In my experience, Sanfranciscogiants17 is pretty easy to work with in GA review world, so I am rather disheartened to see this conclusion. Go Phightins! 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: The lead was the complaint Sanfranciscogiants17 focused on and so I responded about it, but it was not the only one. Their responses to me, indicating at various points that they would simply refuse improvements, were more unconstructive. Now, of course, the lead is important - important enough to get its own criteria. Lots of reviewers do forget how important it is, just check for prose and accept it. But it's the first thing readers see, and while sometimes the only thing they need to bother with, it should be a small reflection of the article. A suitable length - and this article isn't long enough for more than a 3 paragraph lead in practice, if they're going to be long paragraphs as they were here, I promise you - a suitable overview of the article - which was met - but not too detailed - which also was not. I'm not going to put up with a user that has the attitude of a stroppy teenager getting a B (especially after handling recent complaints of other editors 'bullying' reviewers into passing sub-par articles, I don't have the mental strength to deal with the inevitable confrontation of someone who doesn't want to be critiqued), so have at it. Nor do I want to expend the energy going over and over each detail they seem to not understand the reason for needing, i.e. surname use. They value their opinions more than MOS, that seemed evident to me. I warn you not to pass this too easily, for the love of article improvement (what the GA process is, at its heart), and do a proper review - maybe the nominator will not be so kind to you when you do. It wasn't a quickfail, not a full review fail, but a judgement fail because, in the allotted time, this article would not meet criteria based on needing to fight the nominator the whole way. The lead, the last I saw it, was not satisfactory, and there are other points where improvement is required that were already getting pushback, too. Two weeks wouldn't cut it, so I planned to leave a full review for the nominator to look over and decide what to do with in their own time, but got an unpleasant response and saw it renominated in seconds. They don't want feedback, they want a pass. It's not a pass. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, Fair enough. I'll take it over. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wilbur Wood/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. It may take me a few days, but I'll work on this review. Go Phightins! 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
A few areas could be smoothed out, and I'll try to point those out in a forthcoming prose review. Overall, though, these criteria are within striking distance.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Draws on an impressive range of scholarly/journalistic sources, all of which are squarely reliable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Going to see if there are any opportunities to condense because it is a tad long, though that is not, in itself, a problem from either a GA criteria perspective or an MOS perspective.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Not seeing or anticipating any issues here, but I'll read for this when I do a prose review.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No concerns here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
No concerns here. Could take or leave the ballpark photo, but that has no bearing on whether the article meets the GA criteria.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


#### General comments from the outset
I've had a look at the first GA review and will draw on some of that here. I tend, initially, to try to group comments thematically rather than by section, which maybe isn't the easiest to follow, but it's how I tend to think? If it proves annoying, let me know and I can try to group them chronologically. I'll take a swing through the article at the end to comment on prose, but I try to focus on criteria-specific stuff first.

References
Starting here, but off the bat, I see no major concerns. Just a few suggestions (and note ref numbers refer to this version):

Ref 2: Can we link SABR on first reference? Or spell it out?
Refs 3 and 4: Can you standardize how the title appears? Namely the capitalization? I think the first one should just read "Stats"?
Maybe link Baseball-Reference.com on first reference? Same with Sports Illustrated?
Perhaps not required, but probably worth listing AP in the "agency" field when the Google News Archive sources mention it (e.g., refs. 51, 57, and 73)?
Ref 66: No particular referencing style is required, but this one looks inconsistent relative to some of the others? Possible to redo with the "cite book" template so author names appear first?
Ref 105: Can you please add location of the newspaper since it's not obvious from the title (which, per Google News, appears to be Clinton, Iowa)?
General shape of the article (i.e. focus, length, relative weight, etc.)
On the highlights section, I was just wondering how you determined those items for inclusion. I know what we have here pertains to infoboxes ... I am not suggesting anything that's there shouldn't be; I just wanted to wrap my head around your process. For example, I know games started is not something that is on that list, but given that it fits the broader arc of the article's narrative, I don't mind it being there. Also, regarding that style advice, the Fireman award is a precursor to Rolaids Relief, right?
The highlights section was actually already there before I started the article. I figured I'd leave it in, making sure everything was cited, but it's not my contribution; some other editor made all those decisions. Willing to make any changes you might suggest for this section. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, also (I had to look this up too!), the Fireman Award predated the Rolaids Relief Award in its creation, but it was a separate award that continued to be given out simultaneously with the Rolaids Relief one. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The pitching style section seems very heavy on quotes/external evaluations to me and, overall, seems a bit long. I'll circle back to that in a more detailed prose review later. That said, in this section, I wouldn't mind a brief description of who some of these appraisers are (e.g., the people in paragraph three).
This is definitely the longest pitching style section I've ever written. There a couple of reasons for this, though: 1) the knuckleball is an unusual pitch that generates more media coverage than others and 2) there was a very good article about Wood in Sports Illustrated detailing how he throws the pitch. That said, we probably could take out some of the external evaluations if necessary. I think they add a lot to the article, but if length is a problem, I totally understand. I'd be happy to add brief descriptions too, but will wait to see your further comments on this section. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not too invested in this, but I do wonder if there ought to be a professional career section with the teams and the career statistics parts as subsections within that broader section?
A lot of articles do it the way you say. Happy to change it! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
In terms of the lede, it is a touch on the longer side, but it doesn't violate MOS:LEADLENGTH. My only suggestions for what might be trimmed are:
Maybe height and weight could be omitted? (Also, in any case, we probably should come up with a less jargony phrase than "was listed at XXX pounds" ... it's probably not obvious to folks that means on the team roster).
Entering the 1971 season, the White Sox had been attempting to trade Wood could probably be shortened to The White Sox tried to trade would before the 1971 season, but XXX".
This is more about prose than length, but I think this sentence During the year, pitching coach Johnny Sain suggested that he pitch with only two days' rest in between, since knuckleball specialists do not put as much stress on their arms as other pitchers.  would read better as That season, Wood's pitching coach suggested that he pitch with only two days' rest between starts, since knuckleball specialists do not put as much stress on their arms as other pitchers.
 He underwent months of rehabilitation, returning in April of 1977, though, as he put it, he was somewhat "gun-shy" upon his return.[1] After posting the worst earned run average among qualifying AL pitchers in 1978 (5.20), he retired. could probably be condensed to After months of rehabilitation, Wood remained "gun-shy" upon his return and posted the worst earned run average among qualifying AL pitchers in 1978 (5.20). He retired after the season. (One general comment is that there are a lot of long sentences that sometimes could be broken up to allow easier flow.)
Made specific changes and also broke up a couple of the longer sentences. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Miscellaneous content comments
I'll do a section-by-section prose review in the coming days, but I don't have any concerns from an NPOV perspective or a writing quality perspective. I also don't note any original research, though I'll do a few source spot checks at some point.
Overall thoughts as of 2 June 2021
This is a well-researched and largely well-written article. I think the issues that do exist can almost certainly be worked out in the coming several days/week or two. Let me know your thoughts on round one of comments, and we can proceed from there. Go Phightins! 23:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Addressed everything listed so far. Look forward to seeing your further comments! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


#### General prose review
##### Lede
In 1968, he set a record (broken the next year) with 88 games pitched, getting named the Sporting News American League (AL) Fireman of the Year. --> In 1968, he set a record (broken the next year) with 88 games pitched and was named the Sporting News American League (AL) Fireman of the Year.
Link relief pitcher on first reference?
A line drive off the bat of Ron LeFlore fractured his kneecap in a game against the Detroit Tigers. Any way to rephrase this so the "his" unambiguously refers to Wood? I think people should know what this means, but technically the pronoun is a bit ambiguous.
Perhaps add a sentence about his personal life?


##### Early life
Wood attended Belmont High School, where he played in three different sports as a pitcher in baseball, the starting quarterback in football, and a defenseman in hockey. Perhaps add a colon after "sports"? Feels a little awkward without some kind of punctuation there ...
As a general comment, I wonder whether it would be best to take some of these SABR references—particularly of quotes—and link to the original source, such as the Boston Globe for that 1989 quote? Helping readers find the original source generally seems consistent with WP:V. If it doesn't exist in Google News or in another readily accessible archive, then I suppose it doesn't matter as much and we are AGF-ing on SABR as a reliable source (which, of course, I think it is).
That's a good idea. I do that sometimes anyway to show the breadth of research that has gone into the article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


##### Professional career
He won his only decision in four games with the club, posting a 2.70 earned run average (ERA) before getting promoted to the Raleigh Capitals of the Class B Carolina League. Is there anything in the glossary of baseball terms that would explain "decision"? It's a bit jargony for a non-baseball reader.
Sent to the Class B Winston-Salem Red Sox to begin the season... Just want to clarify here: did the Red Sox' class B affiliate change? I know the Carolina League was (until last year) Class A, but in the previous sentence of the article, we refer to a different Class B affiliate. Did they have more than one at the time? I know that minor league baseball has reshuffled its classifications over the years, but just wanted to make sure this is right.
Yes, it looks like their affiliate changed. The Raleigh affiliation was just 1958-60. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
So weird that the Red Sox had a Triple-A affiliate in Washington.
he was given his outright release to Seattle ... not sure I understand what this means. Is this the modern equivalent of being outrighted off the roster? Maybe it would be a little clearer to say he was demoted?
"You either throw the knuckleball all of the time or not at all. It’s not an extra pitch," he said. Is the "he" here Wilhelm?
With the White Sox, Wood became well known as a durable workhorse, and one of the last pitchers to consistently throw well over 300 innings in a season. --> With the White Sox, Wood became well known as a durable workhorse and was among the last pitchers to consistently throw well over 300 innings in a season.
Entering the 1971 season, Wood was poised to be a reliever again, but he was added to the rotation on the final day of spring training after Joe Horlen broke his leg. Perhaps add "starting" before rotation just to be a twinge less jargon-y?
He ranked among the AL leaders with 22 wins (third, behind Lolich's 25 and Vida Blue's 24), a 1.91 ERA (second only to Blue's 1.82), 210 strikeouts (fifth), 22 complete games (third, behind Lolich's 29 and Blue's 24), and seven shutouts (tied with Mel Stottlemyre for second behind Blue's eight). Wondering whether it's necessary to include who he was behind? Seems like it's a bit of needless detail that, in a long article like this one, could be trimmed?
If they're fourth or higher, I like to include who else was above them. Helps put their accomplishment in perspective. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Go Phightins! 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Facing Ryan in a matchup that pitted one of baseball's hardest thrower's versus one of baseball's slowest on May 24, 1973, ... The juxtaposition here doesn't seem quite right ... either Ryan should be the "fastest" or Wood should be the "softest," no?
Wood started consecutive games for the White Sox in 1976, pitching in their ninth game on April 23 and their 10th game five days later, though he lost both of them. Seems a little non-notable that they were consecutive games if they were five days apart? Maybe just condense to say he lost his first two starts?
Starting consecutive games is a very rare feat. Even as non-dramatic as it is coming five days apart, it's definitely something that should be mentioned. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Go Phightins! 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
However, he showed few signs of his former mastery. This phrase seems a little weird to me. Maybe something like "he struggled to find his footing" or "struggled to return to form" or something? I don't know. It's not a big deal ... I just stopped on that sentence and read it a couple times and it seemed a little "off." Could just be me.


##### Career statistics
After receiving just 3.1% of the vote in 1989, he never appeared on a ballot again. Maybe clarify that once you fall below the 5% threshold, you're out?


##### Pitching style
 Sain said, "Wilbur has tremendous poise. He has the perfect temperament [and] never gets rattled." Could you reintroduce who "Sain" is? I'd forgotten by this point.
"The release, you see, is everything," Wood described how to throw the knuckleball. ---> "The release, you see, is everything," Wood said as he described how to throw the knuckleball. (or "in describing how to throw the knuckleball" or something similar)
"I guess they always said, ‘Poor Wilbur, he just doesn’t have enough natural ability to pitch in the big leagues,’” Sain remembered Wood's trouble with the fastball.  Same problem here, I think, just in terms of what comes after the quote. It just feels rather run-on-ey or disjointed to me. (Same deal in the next sentence with Tenace and, later in the paragraph, with Blair ... all would be improved as "so and so said as they XXX [what is already there]").
Maybe omit the paragraph about catchers? It's interesting, but not sure it fits in a biography about Wood? (Actually, perhaps relocate to the knuckleball article?)
I think it should be in the Wood article because it describes his effect on the team. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. Maybe worth adding something to the knuckleball article too, though. Go Phightins! 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


##### Personal life
Wendy received top ranking in the 18's category ... no apostrophe needed there, I don't think? The number 18 isn't possessing anything.
In 1991, Wood remarried to Janet. Was there a divorce in there or something? Also, do we know Janet's maiden name for consistency with the opening to this section?
I couldn't find any articles about a divorce, nor could I find Janet's maiden name. There likely was one, but absent a source, we shouldn't mention that there was. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Did a little bit of digging myself and came up empty too. Perhaps in an obituary someday that will be made more clear. (Not that I'm hoping that comes anytime soon). Go Phightins! 22:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 Soft-spoken, he had a sense of humor he would display around teammates. Hailing from New England, Wood talks with a distinct Boston accent. These two sentences potentially could be combined. Not necessarily necessary, just a thought.


#### General comments
Perhaps my least favorite part of the MOS is MOS:LQ, which says that punctuation is supposed to be outside the quotation marks unless it's inside in the original source. This article does it consistently the other way, I think, and I'm not inclined to hold it up over that alone since it's consistent, but if you ever go the FA route, that'd be something to work through, I suppose.
This is a really interesting biography about a pitcher I don't know that I'd ever heard of.


#### Passing
I am now comfortable this meets the GA criteria. Well done, as usual! Go Phightins! 22:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)