Talk:Jim Wallhead/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my review. I enjoyed reading it and there's quite a bit of good information in there. However, this article has a lot of issues to work out. Looking at the list it may be tempting to just fail this review here, but I will not do that because the prose is very good, perhaps improved from the first GA review. (If the prose also had a lot of problems on top of everything else, this would be a fail for me) I had to make fewer corrections and adjustments to the prose in this article than I usually do, which is pretty nice. Writing to improve the prose takes longer to do from people who are not skilled at it than lots of minor fixes and source problems, so even though it looks like a lot, I think it could be fixed if the editors want to put the work in. I will hold this article for up to a week. If that is not enough time, then hopefully it can succeed later when the issues are fixed. Aaron north (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your guidance! Paralympiakos (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
There are problems with some words to watch (I corrected the first one myself then just started listing them), but the prose is pretty good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should probably be expanded, it needs to summarize the article and a lot is glossed over. You do NOT have to mention all the fights, just a few of the high and low points of his career, but you made this one way too brief. I might put the last sentence (his judo training as a youth) near the beginning of the lead, and start a new paragraph or two on his MMA career.
- Done
This sentence portion (though strangely, he was instead made into an "alternate" who would step up if another castmember withdrew with injury.) appears to be sourced by a blog, and it is analysis rather than simple verifiable statements of fact. (aroundtheoctagon.com) WP:SPS Either another source should be found, or this should be revised without the content sourced from the blog. (oddly enough, the article you used from blogs.mirror.co.uk is fine per WP:NEWSBLOG, since the author is a journalist.)
- Done Re-sourced. I hope the wording is ok. It seems strange that someone would be declined because they were too experienced, only to be held on as a back-up in case of injury. If not, the wording can be removed to just mention his "alternate" status.
cliche used in this sentence should be replaced with neutral wording. WP:WTW (Wallhead was back in action just weeks later and made his second professional appearance against Boris Jonstomp at Cage Warriors: Strike Force.)
- Done "was back in action" -> "competed"
more "words to watch", this time puffery. (In his welterweight debut and his first fight under Team Rough House affiliation, Wallhead came back strong.) Keep in mind that in an encyclopedia article it should be difficult or impossible to determine that the writer either disliked or was a fan of the subject.
- Done replaced with "was victorious"
Perhaps I missed it, but the source does not seem to support the claim in this sentence. (In a result that surprised some members of the media, Angerer defeated Wallhead via submission (arm-triangle choke).) This needs to be supported, otherwise implying that a loss would be surprising looks like original research and calls NPOV in question.
- Done This appears to be one of those occasions where I've read that it was an upset, but for whatever crazy reason, didn't source it. I've had a look around and I can't find it in time. Instead, I've replaced with a sourced note about him controlling the fight until he got caught in the submission.
I don't believe every single fight should have a lot of detail, but we probably should have some idea of what happened in all the important fights in his career. Since his fight against Charles Blanchard was his first high-profile fight for a large US audience, there should be more detail.
- The last GA review sort of told me to go into detail about all the fights. The Blanchard one may be tricky to get more news about.
  - Y I made an effort to find a source on this fight, but didn't have a lot of luck. I'll accept that there's just not much out there for this, perhaps this was a bit too early in his career for a lot of coverage. Aaron north (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done (Sort-of) - added a quote from Wallhead about his disappointment with his performance
In this sentence (Despite Nascimento's poor gamesmanship, Wallhead took the unanimous decision victory which was regarded as the most important victory he had claimed at that stage in his career.) What exactly did the poor gamesmanship consist of, keeping in mind the audience may not be familiar with MMA?
- All I've got is the sentence "poor gamesmanship". I don't personally know.
  - Reading your source again, it seems that maybe what is being discussed here is that the referee did not like his facial expressions and gestures, perhaps he was being crude and/or making a play for votes from the judges? I don't know, it simply is not clear what is meant here by gamesmanship, and without a better description from sources I don't know if this has value in the article. However, I think I did find another source that had a good couple paragraphs on the fight that you could get information to replace whatever content you might need to remove. (http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=6681&zoneid=13)
In these sentences (Due to the dissolving of the organisation, the bout would seemingly be scrapped. However, in May 2009, the Ultimate Force organisation picked up the fight.) I did not see where the source supported the idea that the fight was scrapped. It might seem like common sense to us due to the dissolving of British Fighting Championships, but drawing that conclusion ourselves would be original research. This either needs to be supported, or just drop the bit about thinking the fight might be scrapped and just smoothly transition to where you describe the fight being picked up by Ultimate Fighting.
- Done Fair enough, I thought common sense would suffice, but I've removed/altered it.
If his victory against Che Mills was "arguably the most high profile win of his career", then I would think there would be plenty of coverage. The information on this fight should be expanded on, what did Wallhead do correctly and badly, what did Che Mills do right or wrong, how did the fight go, were either fighters hurt at any point and nearly knocked out, etc.
- Done Have expanded the prose regarding this fight. Comes from the same source as before, as it has a decently detailed analysis.
I don't necessarily think each and every single little fact should be cited when I review articles, but this one needs a cite. (This meant that Wallhead had finally signed with a top MMA organisation.) Either an article from an expert, or statistics which would lead one to believe the statement.
- Done This is a case of something being obvious to MMA fans, but not to non-fans. I've removed it. Widely speaking, Bellator Fighting Championships is one of the better orgs out there, but it's not something obvious to new readers, so I've removed it.

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable FightOpinion is since it appears to be a blog. It might be a nice blog, but WP policy frowns on using blogs as sources. It is merely used for a pretty basic and straightforward fact so it is probably ok, but you probably want to find a different source. Other reviewers might be pickier about the use of blogs.
- This source is just as proof of the fight. There's no analysis of it, just a pure result. If you still don't like this source, I could change it however.
  - (this also applies to the next point below, too) I agree, I have no problem with the use of the blog to simply confirm the fight, I'm just mentioning it down here because others in a reassessment or FAN or whatever might be pickier about the use of blogs for anything. It is not necessary for this review, but you might want to replace the source when you have the time. Aaron north (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Replaced with a source about the fight (from Sherdog; the top MMA website in the world) and a source about his title as a result (from a reliable, non-blog source).
Same thing with cagepotato.com, which is a blog but it seems to be sourcing a simple verifiable fact. You should still probably find a different source when you can so the article remains blog-free and above question.
- cagepotato.com is one of the top MMA sources though...
  - Unfortunately it does appear to be a blog to me. I am fine with how you used it here, but other reviewers and editors might not be. This is also why wrestling articles (by that I mean "fake" wrestling like WWE) are difficult to get to GA because not a lot of journals, magazines, and news organizations want to cover it anymore. Fortunately for you, MMA is becoming mainstream and popular enough that you do have reliable sources available for MMA articles. (it appears that even mainstream sports tv channels and web sites are now beginning to cover MMA)
You have dead links to jimmywallheadmma.co.uk. I don't think it violates the GA criteria since it doesn't source anything controversial and the sources are acceptable (subject to primary source concerns) if it was available when you accessed it, but you should find another source when you can.
- .....damn. This has only died a few days ago then. I'll have to work on this.
Is the personal life section necessary? I don't think the exclusion or inclusion matters either way for the GA standard, so I'm just throwing this in here as a thought. If his personal life isn't well-known, I might leave it off.
- Would you like me to remove it? It's not a big section admittedly.
The two action shots show Wallhead at his best, but I wonder if it might improve the article to also include a picture of one of his most disappointing losses too. This is not necessary for the GA criteria, but it would certainly improve the appearance of NPOV.
- Good point, but it was torture getting the permission for these three images as it is.

Primary Sources[edit]

The following are judgments made by me regarding the appropriate or inappropriate use of primary sources. The interesting sentences which I decided that I was fine with are also listed here just in case a future reviewer (who may agree or disagree) is interested in what I looked at. WP:PRIMARY Aaron north (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two primary sources I could find, jimmywallheadmma.co.uk (which is a dead link, eventually needs to be fixed), and leicestermma.wordpress.com. These were used for basic bio information, which is acceptable (so long as they are not used for analysis) since a primary source can be considered an expert on themselves. If a good secondary source is available for the bio, then that should be used instead, but I'm not sure if a primary source is available for this useful early bio information, so the primary source is probably fine.

Summary by Paralympiakos[edit]

Thank you for your review and your comments. I believe I've satisfied most of the above concerns. I will just mention that unfortunately, I'll only be online until Friday morning, as I have to go away for 4 days from that point. That sadly means this GA review will have to be done as quickly as possible. Thank you again and I look forward to your further review. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna see if I can help with sources over lunch, I'll have a more thorough re-evaluation later today. Aaron north (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, what timezone are you on? As I type, it is 8:XXp.m., so time may be a problem if we're way apart in time. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

central US, I'll be back to review all the changes you made in a few more hours. Even though you have a friday time limit, I suspect we might be able to get this done reasonably quickly despite the time zones because we probably won't have much of a problem with prose in the revisions. (nothing I couldn't help with, anyway) Also, I don't like to fail when an article is this close with an active editor, hopefully we won't need more than 7 days but this can be a little flexible (another week?) if significant progress is made. Aaron north (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks for the response again. Given that I've covered a lot of the points, what now needs altering to meet GA standard? If you could come up with another list, then that would be great for me. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the only remaining issue is the vague bit on "gamesmanship" in the Nascimento fight. If that were either explained further (not sure how since the source is vague), or replaced with other useful details on the fight (I found a link above), then that would be fine. Aaron north (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]