Talk:T206 Honus Wagner

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#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: </div>
I can't believe someone worked so hard on this article; last time I read it, it was very stubby. Great job! Anyhow, a few comments:
#"During the presidency of trust-buster Theodore Roosevelt, the ATC was subjected to legal action from the government, in hopes of shutting down the monopoly in the industry." requires a citation. I'm assuming that you'd use the same reference as in the following paragraph, but it doesn't hurt to cite it directly.
#: Nishkid64 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing work! It gives me great pleasure to pass this as a Good Article. Good luck on your quest for FA status, congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Nishkid64 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: can someone protect this while it's the featured article?  it's changing quite a lot while i try to read it and click through links and come back...  Kinser (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's changing very little compared to most featured articles on the main page. Regardless, please see WP:MPFAP for why your request will likely not happen. Siradia (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: Can someone knowledgeable on the subject please add a section more thoroughly explaining what the water test is, and why the card breaking apart indicates that it is fake? Also, is the test a destructive one (that is, the sample that is put in, regardless of its authenticity, would be destroyed?) Thanks! EagleFalconn (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded; I came to the talk page to ask this very question, surprised it's not elaborated on in the text. --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I was wondering the same thing. --JGerretse (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me three. Perhaps a wiki-link would be nice? Besides that, an amazingly written article. Props to all the editors! --haha169 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll have to find the book that I used to reference this article. It might take a while, since I obtained the book through my university, and I won't be back in college until early September. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now early October, and this question is still unanswered. :( --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water test? 

message: I understand the general principle of WP: Notability and how it doesn't apply to such a clear, well-documented and well-written article such as this one; all I can say, though, speaking as both a non-American and as someone not remotely interested in obscure baseball cards, is that as Featured Articles go, and in terms of the general notability of the subject matter, this is the most utterly trivial Featured Article I have ever read, and goes down in my book as a small monument to heroic but wasted endeavour. Lexo (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but is it really necessary to discourage the editors who worked hard on this article by saying this is "the most utterly trivial Featured Article I have ever read"? I can assure you there are more trivial FAs in Wikipedia, and as FAs go, I find this one a very interesting and informative article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the most valuable sports card in the world. Surely that has to count for something. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not a sports fan by any stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless, this is a very interesting article. It's probably the most well-known single baseball card in the world, out of 100s of 1000s, and even folks like me know about it. Ignore the haters!!! PurpleChez (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I never thought reading about a single card could be so enjoyable, well done! — Realist2 (Speak) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Good 

message: Uhm, the article contains a section describing other cards, and mentioning the PSA 1-10 grading scale. Could someone indicate whether a '2' on this scale means the card is in very good or very bad condition? Also, if an article exists on wikipedia regarding the scale, maybe someone could link to it? I dont know anything at all about the subject, and a search on 'PSA' obviously left me quite confused. Thanks in advance, and congrats on a fine article. --OscarBor (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PSA 2 is considered "Good". It's third-lowest rating in the scale. See . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSA grading scale 

message: The April 9 2013 Chicago Sun Times article referenced under the Jumbo section is discussing the altered Gretzky card, not the Jumbo card  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1eellc (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago sun times  

message: ...discussed card in 1981: http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1981/10/27 A2Kafir (and...?) 20:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Peanuts"... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on T206 Honus Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014063316/http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1907-1925.html to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder/casefinder_1907-1925.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219043619/http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=7603 to http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=7603
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on T206 Honus Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009110746/http://www.explorepahistory.com/~expa/cms/pbfiles/Project1/Scheme40/ExplorePAHistory-a0b9s7-a_514.pdf to http://www.explorepahistory.com/~expa/cms/pbfiles/Project1/Scheme40/ExplorePAHistory-a0b9s7-a_514.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on T206 Honus Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029014224/http://www.oldcardboard.com/t/t206/InsideT206-3-edition.pdf to http://www.oldcardboard.com/t/t206/InsideT206-3-edition.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031043926/http://www.psacard.com/grading/grading_standards.chtml to http://www.psacard.com/grading/grading_standards.chtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719115856/http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/25815571-418/palos-park-man-sued-in-alleged-baseball-scam.html to http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/25815571-418/palos-park-man-sued-in-alleged-baseball-scam.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Suggest adding an "In Popular Culture" section. 
This baseball card has popped up on TV twice recently, once in the first episode of the Amazing Stories 2020 revival,  ("The Cellar" season 1 episode 1) where it is a plot point in a time travel story. Shortly thereafter, the card appears briefly in the first episode of Marvel's Loki ("Glorious Purpose" season 1 episode 1), where it appears in an employee's junk drawer at the TVA, suggesting that the events of that Amazing Stories episode came to the attention of the timeline policing agency.
No citations at the moment, and no idea if there's any production staff in common between the two series, but I just wanted to mention it's there. Kevyn (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Loki appearance had nothing to do with the Amazing Stories episode and was simply a joke about very valuable real-world objects being meaningless in the TVA. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card appears in TV series ''Amazing Stories'' revival and "Loki" 

message: To start things off, I'm not sure that Reader is RS - the pamphlet is self-published, and while I'm seeing a few instances of it being cited, it's basically only on self-published websites and lulu.com books (also self-published).  I don't think it's really useable for FA.
Source-text integrity checks - 
* "In 2020, a new Honus Wagner card was issued by the company (#45) as part of the second wave (of 5) released that year" - source does not specify the card number
* "The Honus Wagner card was first reissued by Topps in 2002," - not in source
* "In response to the authorization request letter sent by John Gruber, a Pittsburgh sportswriter hired by the ATC to seek Wagner's permission, Wagner wrote that he "did not care to have his picture in a package of cigarettes." He threatened to seek legal action against ATC if they went ahead and distributed his baseball card" - Gruber isn't named and I'm not seeing a mention of threatened legal action in that source?
* "the highest grade given to a T206 Honus Wagner card." - not seeing this in the next citation (Hugh's website) nor the NY Daily News ref after that
* " card collector Alan Ray contacted Bob Sevchuk, the owner of a Long Island sports memorabilia store, to arrange a potential $25,000 deal for his T206 Honus Wagner card" - this requires a bit of extrapolation from the source, which just says that Sevchuk (in Long Island) was conducting a purchase with Ray for $25,000 for the card - it doesn't specify that Ray contacted Sevchuk, and doesn't say who came up with the 25k price
* "said he purchased the card because he thought "the market would remain strong," thus making for a valuable investment." - not finding the quote in source?
* "The ATC had already produced a number of T206 Honus Wagner baseball cards; the exact number is unknown, but is speculated to be between 50 and 200" - source says 50 to 200 are known to exist, not that 50-200 were made
Other concerns:
* Reader has additional detail about how these were printed onto sheets and then cut to separate.  If a better source supporting this can be found, it should be included
* The page numbers for Reader are sometimes off
* I'm concerned that there's nothing about this card from when the printing stopped until the Gretzky card sale in the main article body.  For instance, the lead mentions the Burdick valuation, but doesn't say anything about this in the body.  Surely it was considered rare before the Gretzky sale, and this should be covered
Based on the concerns above, the O'Keeffe source should really be checked to make sure this article has source-text integrity.  I don't have the time to go all the way through this article, so this is not an exhaustive issue listing.  If these are not corrected, the article will likely require WP:FAR. Hog Farm  Talk 04:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns 

message: Hey guys, I just read that the 1952 Mickey Mantle card recently sold for 12.6 million at an auction, making it the most valuable card now. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/08/28/1952-mickey-mantle-card-sells-for-record-126-million-at-auction/amp/ Mastergerwe97 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record has been broken