Talk:Boxing glove/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gracefool (talk · contribs) 10:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decent article that is almost ready for good article status. It definitely failed the first criteria, well written, but I have copyedited the article to fix this. The remaining issue is with many sources of dubious quality, e.g. iSport, Commando Boxing, LiveStrong, AZCentral. Probably none of these sources are needed (there are too many references anyway), and they should be replaced with primary sources, whether already used elsewhere or not (e.g. official boxing rules).

Thank you for reviewing and modifying some section in this article. So now I just need to remove or replace the dubious references to appropriate ones or leave it on the reference list, and any further action should I be taken to consider? Thank you. WPSamson (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "leave it on the reference list". If it's not good quality it should be removed altogether.

I've made some more copyedits and other improvements (like discovering a completely false statement and adding an image). Looking again the first caption could be improved by expanding it, e.g. "a pair of velcro sparring gloves" or whatever they are. I think that and fixing references would suffice to make this a good article, although I'd appreciate a second opinion since this is my first review.

Further improvements could be some expansion on hand wraps (taken from the article), and a (captioned) picture of a bare-knuckle boxer to compare against. ··gracefool 💬 20:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Based on the feedback provided, I had do some modification on the page. This includes removal of non-necessary referencing, expansion of the hand wraps section and also small description of the boxing gloves in Minoan youth boxing so far. Do this page need any further thing to complete on so that it is ready for gaining the status? Thank you. WPSamson (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the removals.

Your hand wraps expansion had major grammar problems and didn't add any relevant information, so I reverted it.

It's okay - often good - to use the same reference more than once in an article. I've readded the repeats you removed.

I removed the information you copied from the caption (Minoan youth boxing). It's okay to have new information in captions, and not good to say the same thing twice.

I'm finding a lot of issues with references as I'm checking them, so unfortunately it seems all the references need to be checked for correct reference information - see my last edit for examples. Also I find it much harder to edit an article when the references are split over multiple lines, because it's very hard to see where the paragraphs are, but that's personal preference, you may disagree. ··gracefool 💬 03:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Gracefool, WPSamson, where does this review stand? The nominator has not edited the article since December 5, and there are no new comments here since the reviewer's on December 9. If the issues mentioned in the last comments have not been addressed in the seven weeks since they were made, then perhaps it is time to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've closed it as failed. ··gracefool 💬 23:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]