Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard Hopkins vs. Oscar De La Hoya
- The following discussion 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 12:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bernard Hopkins vs. Oscar De La Hoya
[edit]- ... that his 2004 bout against Bernard Hopkins was the first time in his professional career Oscar De La Hoya was considered the underdog?
- Reviewed: Hermann Müller (Idstein)
Created by Beast from da East (talk). Nominated by Maile66 (talk) at 01:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
Article is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced. QPQ done but not needed for non-self-nomination. I have a few questions about sourcing. In the second paragraph under Background, the idea that Sturm thought De La Hoya had been gifted the fight so the lucrative match could go ahead needs a source. Most of the information in the third paragraph under Background isn't in the source you're citing; where did you get the information about the catch-weight and the odds? Footnote 8 doesn't mention Larry Holmes at all; if you want to mention him, perhaps you could find a different ref. Please also add a source for the last 2 sentences under Aftermath. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I see you have also notified the article creator. This template is also transcluded on his talk page. Let's hope he'll remedy this and answer here. Other than to nominate it, boxing is a little out of my knowledge base. Yoninah, my hat's off to you for thoroughly reading the article and the sourcing. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Did the edits by the creator later that same day address any of the issues raised here? If not, what's still needed? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- No. The page creator just added another paragraph, which also has some close paraphrasing issues. All the sourcing issues mentioned in my review still stand. Yoninah (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
