Wikipedia:Featured article review/Simon Byrne/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 14:26, 22 November 2010 [1].

Simon Byrne[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Simon Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, User talk:Savidan, User talk:GiacomoReturned, User talk:ALoan, User talk:Bunchofgrapes.

FA from 2006, fails FA criteria and standards, 1c issues throughout, pov issues and unreferenced claims, most noticeably for example with very last paragraph, unsourced claim about something that has not yet happened, not being elected to a hall of fame. Article could use overall copyediting for flow and ease of readability. Images used in article currently number (11), these could all use FA standard image review. Various different formats of blockquoting are used multiple times in the article, these are not needed and should be removed, or at the very least, standardized to be uniform. Different citation styles are used for references, these should be formatted to be standardized for uniform style throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cirt, this article has some issues:
  1. This image, File:Ward painting.jpg has no author and source information. Needs a source per WP:IUP. JJ98 (Talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try reading the "description" here, or even the page itself, where this is quite clearly explained. It says explicitly who the author is and he is long dead.  Giacomo  07:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some of the unsourced statements like "which often led to further public inconvenience and disturbance." in the section Early 19th-century English boxing is unreferenced. JJ98 (Talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undoubtedly this article fails the current citation density test, and for me there are too many images, but overall I don't see anything particularly difficult to fix; the blockquotes issue is already fixed for instance. I note that there has been no discussion on the article's talk page about any improvements felt necessary, which might have avoided the need for this FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, significant amounts of work is still needed. The article would not pass FAC in its current state. Nor would it pass GAN. -- Cirt (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, but it's better to do the work than to complain about it being undone. As I said, I would have preferred to see these issues brought up on the article's talk page without the necessity for an FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One time I tried that. An admin who was also an "involved" significant contributor to that particular page, chose instead of responding, to utilize the WP:ROLLBACK tool to remove my entire subsection discussion posting from the talk page. That was an interesting experience. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ideally such a situation would be resolved with the admin concerned or in some suitable admin place. Opening this FAR rather then discussion on the talk page, seems as be ill advised festering over a previous situation and likely to disrupt Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that problems would have been addressed if they were brought up on the talk page, specifically, significant source deficiencies with the article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional problems with the article
  1. Most of the refs are dead.
  2. Ref 1 only mentions Byrne once about the fatalities and doesn't work for the other stuff.
  3. That cyberboxing website; not very reliable?
  4. Cite 17 and 2 are used a lot and are broken.
  5. Cite 25 appears to only back up the preceding sentence, and not the other 4-5 as well about death threats and riots.
  6. Reliability of cite 25 appears in question.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some initial replies
  • I think there is only one dead link now, ref #17, which I'll get to soon.[2]
  • Ref #1 is now used only twice, once to verify Byrne's fatalities and again to verify the real name of the fighter known as Brighton Bill.
  • The link in ref #2 (The Andersen paper on Pugilistic Prosecutions) has been updated.
  • Ref #25 is no longer needed and has been removed, as the material it was supporting was outside the focus of the article IMO.
Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More issues
  1. At least one questionable source still used: www.cyberboxingzone.com Cirt (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've run that one by Ealdgyth and it's in hand. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the response by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) was not that clear. The source is disputed. Alternative reliable sourcing should with editorial review should be found, instead. -- Cirt (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. www.dulwichdynamo.homechoice.co.uk = dead link
  3. www.measuringworth.com = questionable source, seems sorta like WP:NOR
  4. www.ibhof.com = quotes an "excerpt" from a book, why not just cite the book?
  5. www.ibhof.com = same thing with this one, just seems lazy not to cite the book itself.
  6. www.mkheritage.co.uk = questionable source.
  7. [3] = questionable source.

This raises lots of serious sourcing concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I tried to make clear, but clearly failed, was that my replies were initial, not the final deal; I am as well aware as you that work remains to be done, but unlike you I'm doing it, not complaining that it hasn't been done fast enough for my liking. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not complaining, just listing serious source problems with a purportedly "featured" quality article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing like a bit of encouragement, and your comments are nothing like a bit of encouragement. Might I encourage you to leave your problems with Giano at the door? Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might I encourage you to please keep your comments focused on content, something you have failed to do several times now. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had intended to work on this article to allow it to keep its little bronze star, but in the face of Cirt's continued hostility and determination to see it delisted I've decided to throw in the towel. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to keep my comments focused to content, and not repeated comments focused on individual contributors. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has done the opposite. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah right, "just seems lazy" couldn't conceivably be considered a personal comment could it, not from an administrator anyway. No doubt the article will now be delisted, just as you wanted it to be. I hope you get some scintilla of pleasure from the experience, because it's left a bad taste in my mouth. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made zero mention of any particular user in this comment [4]. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the earnest request of the primary author (me) that no one respond to this FAR and the subseqent FARC. This whole process is not worth the trouble it causes. Pages are still good pages and/or bad pages regardless of what is decided by those who live in this area of Wikipedia. Pages don't need silly little stars and the editors who are hauled before this court to answer for their actions for having the audacity to write these FAs certainly don't need the treatment they get here. My advice is, forget this repulsive area of Wikipedia and just write good pages to the best of your ability and then never ever FA them.  Giacomo  09:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have stricken comments in two places, above, where I should have known better and could have conducted myself in a more polite and professional demeanor, [5] and [6] - I apologize for that. It is indeed correct that these comments were not necessary, and in the future I will try to avoid such statements. Once again, I am sorry, -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include prose, sourcing, POV and images. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not supposed to be commenting on pages connected with me or Bishonen etc!  Giacomo  17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Cirt. I see little improvements, still no progress. 1a, 1c, and 1d still exists throughout the article, and nobody hasn't updated recently. JJ98 (Talk) 04:56, 15 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Simon_Byrne/archive1&oldid=398299675"