Talk:1857 baseball convention
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Bruxton in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from 1857 baseball convention appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 February 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 Bruxton (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that before the 1857 baseball convention, baseball games in which neither team scored 21 runs before the conclusion of play ended in a draw? Source: Hershberger, Richard (Spring 2013). "The Base Ball Convention of 1857". Base Ball: A Journal of the Early Game. 7 (1): 38.
- ALT1: ... that under a rules draft presented at the 1857 baseball convention, baseball bats would have been allowed to be shaved flat on one side? Source: Hershberger, Richard (Spring 2013). "The Base Ball Convention of 1857". Base Ball: A Journal of the Early Game. 7 (1): 33.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2006 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game
Created by Giants2008 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1857 baseball convention, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Article is neutral, meets the required length, and is sufficiently referenced—created on 30 January, the same day as this nomination. Hooks are succinct, neutral, and reliably sourced; they're both interesting, but I'd say ALT1 is probably more accessible for general readers. AGF on offline sources. QPQ looks good. This is good to go! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 16:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
