Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Fuebaey (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey

[edit]
(
)

Completed QPQ review of International_Wrestling_Association_(1970s).

Created by Btphelps (talk). Self nominated at 22:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC). — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This newly created article shows a lot of effort by its creator. The article is rated C Class. It is definitely long enough. However, it has problems.
  • There are paragraphs ending "bare"—with no cites.
WP:GACR criteria 2b states that the article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines". For more info, consider WP:GACN, especially Section 1.2, which says, "Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.)" If you feel like this article doesn't meet criteria 2b, please tag the places you feel added references are needed.
  • Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia contradictions. No matter which conflicting source you may quote to justify your actions, the DYK administrators are going to require a cite to close every paragraph. I added "cites needed" where those are missing.  Done
  • If I am being required to meet specific criteria, I'd like to know what they are. The DYK Additional Guidelines only state, "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." This article more than adequately meets that standard. I can find no other guidance about DYK noms that specifies a citation at the end of every paragraph, which you are requiring. To expedite approval of this DYK nom, I have complied as requested, but may I ask where is this added requirement documented?
  • I am not requiring anything; I am sharing my prior experience with DYK with you. Personally, I have spent the past five years questioning contradictions in the citation system, to no avail. Perhaps the editor that is required to rule on ALT1 can better satisfy you.
  • (cont'd) Additionally, the cite above the block quote is formatted differently from others in article and needs a change to conform. Done
  • Sorry, but this is still uncorrected; also, the visible page number is "337", while text of the cite quotes "336". Also, the same nonconforming type of cite can be seen in "Fitzsimmons gets injunction".
  • Since when is the use of the {{rp}} template "non-conforming"? I've used it for years in multiple articles including for example this Good Article. The documentation for this template states, "This template is only intended for sources that are used many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in <references/> or too many individual ones." How else do you indicate the correct page when you use the same source multiple times? I'd like to see a link to the MOS that says this style of references is "non-conforming". I think your statement that this style of citation is "non-conforming" is overreaching within the confines of a DYK nom.
  • By "non-conforming", I meant that you have two different types of cites within the article. I don't recall seeing any article assessed above Start class with such. I am not doubting the utility of the cite form you used, though it is unfamiliar to me. In the same situation, I use a different form of multi-ref. However, I will leave it to the next editor.
  • I would also recommend a cite at the very end of the lede, as today's readers are much more likely to know about the gunfight than the prize fight.  Done
  • Also, there are bare URLs among the cites that need to be "clothed".  Done
  • More troubling is the reliability of sources. As can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F wikis are not reliable sources; yet citations 2, 3, 24, and 25 link to such.
I can only find one wiki link, now Cite #3. Working on another source.  Done
Cites 7, 14, 28, 35, and 36 are all linked to wikis. Coincidentally, they are all bare URLs.  Done
I updated the citations you named. I believe you confused "wikis" with possible "blogs" however. But I don't understand why you describe them as a "bare URL" however. It is my understanding that a bare URL refers to a citation that displays the plain text URL in the citation, causing a CS1 error as documented here.
To quote WP: "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." And a bare URL is one without accompanying information that would allow it to re-establish a dead link.
  • Likewise, Stuart Lake is not considered reliable, even if he is in print. Later biographers have contravened almost all of Lake's book. The WP article you link to even calls it "largely fictional".
I agree that Lake's book has been disputed and that most experts are suspicious of it as an authoritative source. (Disclaimer: I was largely responsible from taking the original article Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal from 1,198Kb to to 30,739Kb.) That's exactly the point. No one knew who was telling the truth, and Lake's book illustrates that continued cover up. I modified the description of the book to read, "In the much-criticized and disputed biography..."  Done
  • Cites 6, 10, and 18 are dead links.
Now cites 7, 10, and 18.  Done
  • Cites 22 and 23 are identical and should be multi-reffed.
Wrong title on one.  Done
  • At 211 characters, the hook is too long.
I modified the DYK Nom wording to reflect that Earp was actually in on the fix and that his reputation was tarnished nationwide. It is 194 characters based on a character count using MS Word.  Done
It's still pretty long. I supplied ALT1, which is snappier and checks in at 130 characters.
While ALT2 is "snappier", which you appear to personally prefer, the original DYK hook falls within the guidelines at under 200 characters, and is more informative about the article content, which is not just about the fight but the controversy and public criticism that supposed "good guy" Earp was subject to as a result of the fight. I think the original hook is much more compelling.
As it says in the DYK review instructions: "While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." Also, there is no requirement that you summarize the article in the hook. In fact, it is recommended that you make the article a teaser by including "An unusual juxtaposition", "An unusual nickname", or "A superlative or record". My ALT1 was offered in that vein, and you are likely to have more ALTs added.
Please note I am not rejecting your hook, just commenting on it with the hopes of increasing your readership.
  • QPQ confirmed.
  • The newspaper graphic can be seen in one of the sources dating from 1896. Copyright expired. Other graphics not yet checked.
  • I placed the DYK nom tag on the article Talk page for you.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (second round of corrections) Cite 10 visibly misspells "injunction".  Done
Thanks for the review and input. I'll look into these issues over the next couple of days. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In light of new information found, I modified the DYK nom, changing "stopped the 1896..." to "fixed the 1896..." Please reassess the article's readiness for DYK. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 06:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 includes the above new info. You will need another editor to sign off on it. I have also gone through the article again. A bit more work is needed.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please advise whether you want another editor to review your proposed ALT1 or not. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
At this point, I think I have rendered as much help as my limited experience allows. (Five DYKs, with nine more awaiting review.) DYK rules say another editor must finish this review anyhow, because I can't approve my own ALT1. I have left some other minor items for them also, in hopes that a more experienced and "legalistic" editor can satisfy your queries. I am a bit clumsy finding all the policies bearing on DYK; I hope the next editor can link you to the relevant pages.
I wish you the best of luck with this DYK. As much as I have read about Earp, this chapter of his life was a surprise to me—and I think it will be for a lot of readers.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I considered approving this but decided that I couldn't endorse the unsubstantiated fact that the match was fixed even though the statement is likely to be true. I would suggest
  • New reviewer needed of ALT2 hook, plus any other issues that may be unresolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Article is a rattling good read, well done to whoever wrote it! However, there's an element of 'not seeing the wood for the trees' and I've felt compelled to add the "who, what, where, when" facts to the introductory sentence (and remove the wikilinks from the title). Article was new enough when nominated, appears very well sourced, neutral and well written. However, ALT2 may need further tweaking - for example I can't see any cited proof that the fix was "widely believed" and the court clearly wasn't convinced by the hearsay either (maybe "rumoured" would be a better form of words). On a more minor point the word "boxing" would be useful in the hook. It's also pretty key to the hook that Earp was the referee, isn't it? I'd suggest:
ALT3 ... that Wyatt Earp refereed the 1896 Fitzsimmons vs. Sharkey world heavyweight boxing championship match and was rumored to have fixed the result? Sionk (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed for ALT3 hook, plus any other issues that may be unresolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This article was new enough at the time of nomination and is long enough. The ALT3 hook is cited and acceptable and I have struck the other hooks. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright/close paraphrasing issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the generous praise about the article and kudos to the latest reviewers for getting this article (finally!) through DYK. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 06:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fitzsimmons_vs._Sharkey&oldid=641838392"