Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/500 home run club/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [1].

500 home run club

Featured list candidates/500 home run club/archive1

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tigers list nom is effectively done (5 supports, concerns are all dealt with promptly) and 3,000 hits is rolling along nicely so figured I'd write this baby up finally. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—~~a dab link to Texas Rangers;~~ no dead external links. Ucucha 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. That damn dab will be the death of me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. Ucucha 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jujutacular ^T · C 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Four players – Aaron, Mays, Eddie Murray, and Rafael Palmeiro – are also members of the 3,000 hit club." - are these four players from the Giants? Ambiguous.
"Some believe the milestone has become less important with the large number of new members, 10 players joined the club from 1999 to 2009." - the comma should either be a semicolon or the second part should be reworded.
Perhaps link "Steroid Era" to Banned substances in baseball.
I assume the "Closest active players" section is also correct as of July 2010? What do you think about moving that note up to the "Key" section?

Jujutacular ^T · C 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything looks good to me, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments:~~ It's hard to pass up a list that contains some of my favorite former players (Murray, Thomas, and Griffey Jr.). As long as everything else checks out, the article looks and reads well. My only concern is the "Closest active players" section, as well as any other active players on the list. Is this being updated daily? Or are they being updated only at the end of the season? It might be important to note this somewhere on the page. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's noted under the key, "Statistics as of July 22, 2010". Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... completely missed it. But there is one other thing I noticed. The "See also" section links to 2 other lists that are currently up for deletion and so far looked doomed to go. In fact, the lists don't contain anything new compared to this one. Given the template {{Baseball records}} at the bottom, I'm not sure if the section is needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying that, I'll delete them now. Another user added them upon creating those two lists, but I didn't want to delete without someone mentioning since I had voted at the AFD. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Comments: Overall quite good, but:[reply]

In the lead, you mention twice that the 500 home run club is becoming less important; that should ideally be condensed to one mention.

I disagree. First it's a general statement about the Hall of Fame which merely mentions in passing. Then it discusses Hall of Fame stuff. Then goes into detail on the weakening of the club. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree; you still have almost the same phrase twice in near proximity. But I suppose it's a matter of preferences, so I'm moving to support. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~If Sheffield's 500th home run was his first at the New York Mets, where did he get the others? If at another team, why isn't that team mentioned in the list?~~

Because, as the key says, the Team column is only for "The batter's team for his 500th home run". Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should read more closely. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I copy-edited the lead, and spot-checks of the statistics against the sources revealed no discrepancies. The list meets the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great list! I am not a baseball fan by any means, but I found this list interesting, informative, and well-written. Well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"Gary Sheffield is the most recent to hit 500 home runs, having done so on April 17, 2009." Well, he didn't hit them all on that day. Maybe "to hit his 500th home run" would work better?
In the table, the team name link for Mel Ott doesn't go to an article about the New York Giants. Instead, it goes to a page on some football team. Who would be interested in that? :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I used "reach 500 home runs"). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I changed Ref to Ref(s) because some had multiple entries)

Not at all keen on the Closest active players section. Makes the list inherently unstable, and, after all, these guys aren't members of the club yet. Plus "within 100" seems a little arbitrary to me.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the addition of another editor. I removed it originally, but he noted that List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples is featured with such a section, so I didn't want to edit war over that. I'd say that section doesn't leave it any more unstable than the active players in the list, or any list with active players (like my .400 OBPer list, eg). As for the 100, it is somewhat arbitrary, but it serves the purpose of being both a nice round number and giving you a limited group of players. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, understood. Not keen still, not objecting, but don't think it fits in. Plenty of FLs with similarly stated inclusion criteria don't have a "bubbling under" section. Odd to see one here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to remove (or you can yourself). I have no strong connection to it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.