Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Stumpf (baseball)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill Stumpf (baseball)

(

)

... that Bill Stumpf led the Northwestern League in batting average one year after suffering a near career-ending injury?

Reviewed: Kit Mueller

Created/expanded by PM800 (talk). Self nom at 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is long enough, adequate expansion within the required time period, no plagarism. My one concern with the hook is that it implies that Stumpf was officially the league leader. And while he is listed as having the leading average in the league in a reliable source, that is based on Stumpf having 162 at bats, and the list itself includes all players with at least 50 at bats. And it seems unlikely to me, without further sourcing, that the league itself would recognize its batting champion on the basis of players with less than 100 at bats. So I am not sure if Baseball-Reference is just using its own arbitrary cutoff (in which case, could there be a player with a higher batting average with even fewer at bats, say a player who went 1-2 or 1-1), or whether they are indeed representing the official league-recognized batting champion. In the absence of a confirmatory reference, this could be alleviated by revising the hook to be:

ALT1 ... that one year after suffering a near career-ending injury, Bill Stumpf batted .405 in the Northwestern League, higher than any other player in the league with at least 50 at bats?

Or if that sounds clunky, even leaving off the last clause would be an impressive enough hook IMO. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

ALT1 is fine with me. - PM800 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Then the ALT should be good to go. Someone may want to take a quick look at the ALT since I, as the reviewer, proposed those changes. Rlendog (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)