Talk:Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Beginning review... Otto4711 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose needs some cleanup. Issues include:
 * Lead
 * "Trilogy" is probably not an appropriate descriptor since the fights were not conceived as such in the way that, say, the Lord of the Rings films were
 * Peacock words like "exciting", "devastating" and the like should be removed
 * ✅ - Removed them. Though would it matter at all if I have sources referenced later in the article that uses those terms to describe the fights? Also I really like the word trilogy in this case. I can't think of a better word to quickly introduce the fact that Silva vs. Jackson consists of three separate fights. I'd really like to keep this if you wouldn't mind.


 * even rendered completely unconscious → rendered unconscious
 * ✅ made the change per your suggestion.


 * knees strikes → knee strikes
 * ✅ just a typo on my part.


 * Eliminate completely from the last sentence


 * Background
 * More peacock words like "legend" throughout
 * ✅ replaced it with "fighter".


 * holding onto "his" belt → holding onto his – Jackson's – belt clarifies who Jackson meant by "his"
 * ✅ I'm not sure if my replacement is appropriate, I'm gonna doublecheck to make sure.


 * He attributed the rivalry to the fact is this a fact or Jackson's belief?
 * ✅ changed it to "According to Jackson..."


 * Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * including for Randy "The Natural" Couture,[38] a fighter noted for his exceptional ability in fight analysis. feels like it's included solely for the purpose of introducing a link to Couture
 * I threw Couture in there to make the sentence seem less "weasly", and I thought it was significant that even Couture focused on the personal issues (showing additional merit to the claim that the personal issues were pretty pressing), because he's well known for his fight analysis.


 * I'm going to hold off on going into detail on the fight sections until the copyright question is resolved.
 * A few MoS issues. Nicknames, if used, should be used upon first reference only and thereafter the fighter's last names should be used. So all instances of "Rampage" should be changed to "Jackson". "Ninja" and "Shogun" should use the fighters' names. There is some overlinkage of common terms, including trilogy (if retained), "bad blood", "heavyweight" and "kickboxer".
 * ✅ unlinked everything. Changed Ninja and Shogun to "Murilo" and "Mauricio". Rampage to Jackson.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article has an appropriately formatted reference section. What makes the various websites, including but not limited to bloodyelbow.com, 411mania.com, pretty much every source beginning with the letters "mma" and several of the others reliable sources? These strikes appeared to open up a cut over Silva's right eye. needs a source. Both fighters appeared cautious for the opening minutes of the fight does too.
 * * bleacherreport.com is an official partner with CBS Sports, so I assume it'd be OK.
 * * thefightnetwork.com is a content partner with yahoo.com, and Foxsports.com
 * * FiveOuncesofPain.com is a content partner with CBS Sports.
 * * mma.fanhouse.com seems to be an entity of AOL sports
 * * BloodyElbow.com is gone from the article.
 * * MatRatz.com and MMAConvert.com only link to video interviews of the fighters. I hope those are OK.
 * * 411mania.com is removed from the article. I found a way to get around it. Bad intentionz (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ If MatRatz.com and MMAConvert are OK because they just link to video interviews, all the sources in the article should be considered reliable.


 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article covers the three fights and the background surrounding the rivalry. The descriptions of the fights are too detailed and may run afoul of copyright as "derivative works". There should not be a blow-by-blow account of the action.
 * Does the paragraph about Jackson's former trainer really add anything to the article?
 * ✅ removed the paragraph because after consideration I think it does disrupt the flow a bit.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article covers the fights in a neutral fashion.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No edit warring evident from page history.
 * 1) 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):
 * I question whether the use of both the staredown image and the shoving image from UFC 92 weigh-ins meet fair use criteria. The fair use rationales are a bit on the weak side and certainly the staredown can be described using prose. Although not strictly an image issue, I don't believe that the infoboxes detailing their fight records add anything substantive to the article and having them in the article clutters it with repetitive information.
 * ✅ removed the staredown pic and tagged it for deletion. I also replaced it with a single infobox at the top, and I was wondering what you thought about that.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm going to place the article on hold to allow for the above issues to be addressed and also to get some additional feedback on the fight description issue. Please let me know if there are any questions about the review or anything else I can help with. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ALl right, while I still have a couple of very minor concerns I believe that enough has been addressed to allow the article to be listed at GA. Nice work. Otto4711 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ALl right, while I still have a couple of very minor concerns I believe that enough has been addressed to allow the article to be listed at GA. Nice work. Otto4711 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Commenting on two of the points:
 * 2) Sherdog.com provides MMA content for ESPN, MMAWeekly.com for Sports Illustrated and Yahoo! Sports and MMAJunkie.com also for Yahoo! Sports . I'll do some research on the others.
 * 3) Facts are not copyrightable so there should be no problems with regards to that. Any reasons beside that to avoid a detailed description of the fights? -- aktsu (t / c) 17:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that facts are not copyrightable but the manner in which facts are presented is, for example, we can't copy copyrighted textbooks verbatim just because the material is factual. I have asked for further opinions here. Otto4711 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)