Talk:Lee Richmond's perfect game

Lee Richmond's perfect game has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 30, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Baseball Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts / Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lee Richmond's perfect game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 00:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Will review this. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Only a few comments:

"Since 1876, there have been over 237,000 games..." As this number is rising by 2,430 games per year, it would be good to include a date there (something like "from 1876 to 2023" or the like), so that figure doesn't become obsolete or need updating on a yearly basis.

Changed

In the "Lee Richmond" section of "Background" it notes he joined Worcester in 1879, but doesn't specify from where. Later on it notes he waived his final year at Brown to play only for Worcester. Was he at Brown in 1879? If so it would be good to clarify that. Something like "In 1879, Lee Richmond, a student at Brown University, joined the Worcester Worcesters..."

Changed

"In 1879, Lee Richmond joined the Worcester Worcesters,[a] a mediocre team in the National Association." Mediocre in what way? Best to clarify (I see from the league page they finished 4th of 9 teams, is that roughly where they were when Richmond joined?).

So by the looks of it, I got confused when I initially read the SABR article. The Worcesters weren't exactly a bad team, it's just that they weren't popular until Richmond came along. I've updated the article to clarify that.

"...Richmond signed a $2,400 contract." Any context to how good of a salary that was in relation to other players?

The SABR article sources the Toledo Blade, and that source claims it was a record setting contract. What record the contract broke, I have no idea. This SABR article seems to indicate that the average contract in 1880 was around $5000 or so (note that the chart at the bottom of the article is for individual year salaries, not the entire contract)

John Montgomery Ward's perfect game has Perfect!: Biographies and Lifetime Statistics of 14 Pitchers of Perfect Baseball Games With Summaries and Boxscores" by Ronald Mayer as a source. Is there a reason you didn't include that as a source for this article?

While working on Ward's perfect game article, I found that the book in question was on the Internet Archive, and included some more information about Ward. However, it didn't include any new information about Richmond or his perfect game that wasn't already covered from the other sources I used, so I decided to not include it.

Once the above are addressed, will take a final review, but it should be good then. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: Hi there! Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've addressed all of your comments. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply here. I'm happy with everything, and enjoyed reading the article. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]