Talk:Simon Byrne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very enjoyable article to read and very informative. No issues and just these minor points:

"after which his seconds were allowed 30 seconds": seconds...seconds, though I'm not sure there's a way around it. If not, it isn't a problem.
"This match was McKay's first ever prize-fight.": I'm not sure of the distinction between this and the earlier fights. I can understand the first fight, as no money seems to have changed hands, but he received £100 for his second. What made receiving £100 against McKay a prizefight, but not the other? Forgive me if I am being dense.
"two-and-a-half years earlier Byrne had defeated him" Is this not repeated from the previous section?
"To get himself into condition for the fight Byrne had reduced his weight from 210 pounds (95 kg) to 186 pounds (84 kg), an effort that "as it was effected by hard work and sweating, somewhat impaired his natural stamina, especially as, his habits being far from abstemious when in Ireland, he was scarcely fitted to undergo the necessary amount of labour"." To be really picky, does the quote need in-text attribution?
"A contemporary newspaper report of the day reported a blow-by-blow account of a fair match": report...reported.

Everything else checks out, including spot checks on referencing. I'll put this on hold, for what it's worth, but I can't see it taking long. I just wish all sports articles here were so readable! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very prompt review; given the length of the GA queue I thought we'd be waiting for months!. I think I've addressed everything; to clarify your second point, it was McKay's first prize fight, not Byrne's. So far as in-text attribution of quotations is concerned, all of those are attributed to the citation at the end of the paragraph. I've never seen the point of repeating the same citation time after time, it's just distracting. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes I was being dense after all. Everything fine, passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]