Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lonsdale Belt/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:14:07 26 May 2019 (UTC).

Lonsdale Belt

 * Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List as i believe it is an interesting and important topic. It is comprehensive, upto date and complete. It is also an excellent gateway for the reader to learn about British boxing and it's champions over the last 110 years. I am receptive to constructive criticism and suggestions as i want this to be a credit to the Wikipedia community.

It was also suggested here when i put this article forward as a FAC a few months back.

I have now changed the images to ensure they are free.

Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lirim.Z
Question
 * Note: A good article can't be a featured list, as far as I know. Doesn't make sense.-- Lirim  |  Talk  22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, i don't see anything in Featured list criteria saying this, and there is no such thing as a Good List, as far as im aware? Okeeffemarc (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, Guys, can you clear this up?-- Lirim  |  Talk  08:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no reason as far as I'm concerned that we can't review this on the basis of a becoming a featured list. GA status certainly doesn't preclude it, and as there is no such thing as a Good List, this may be the only route to featured status for an article which at first glance appears to be more list than article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRM and suggested at the FAC linked above that this article should be considered a list. If this does end up as a promotion, it should be simple enough to open a good article reassessment to have the GA status removed if that is deemed necessary. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thirded, this is a list to my eyes and I wouldn't have promoted as a GA for that reason; that it was does not preclude it from FLC. I don't think a GAR would be needed if it passed FLC, just untagging, but I also tend to ignore procedural motions like that. -- Pres N  03:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

General References
 * The picture needs an alt text - All the pictures have Alt text, i have expanded on them though
 * assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions as of 2018. assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions since then. (No need to mention as of 2018) - Done
 * In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] This was won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year.[17]In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year. - Done
 * Don't use |work= for refs that are not newspapers, use publisher instead e.x for boxrec or bbc There were 2, thank goodness for CMD+F! Done.
 * Dont use all caps MOS:Caps, like in ref 3 - Done
 * Ref 4: Antiques Trade Gazette, 1 October 2011, page 22 Is this a book? By whom?
 * It's a weekly magazine - -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some refs need authors if available, like Ref 153 - This is BoxRec, therefore not an individual author.
 * -- Lirim  |  Talk  12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Some more comments
 * Sorry for the late answer
 * The lead should be bigger. It needs to tell something about the history and the winners. It's not enough to mention who introduced it and who was the first champion. - done, but didn't want to add too much that i repeat myself. Feel it's important the article sticks to telling the belts's story. Don't want to waffle.
 * The champion column should be the first in all tables - done
 * All tables should start with {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" and all champions given with scopes (! scope="row"|) - done
 * — Lirim  |  Talk  16:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Response

 * Thanks for the feedback and pointers so far. I have answered the points in Bold. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

are you still active, it appears you haven't edited for two months? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am still active, will be updating current champion tables today. Have been quite busy at work recently and am waiting on the conclusion of this process too.

kind regards --Okeeffemarc (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll do a review of the list in due course, just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to waste my time! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In a last-gasp bid to spring this one to life....
 * Comments from ChrisTheDude
 * At only five sentences, the lead is too short and needs expanding - done, but as said above, didn't want to add so much that i repeat myself
 * No need for the "main article" links to NSC and BBFC as they are linked in the prose immediately afterwads - done
 * "A 9-carat or 22-carat gold belt composed of two heavy chains with a central enamel medallion depicting a boxing match;" - this is a not a complete clause - sorted
 * "In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year." - spot the issue ;-) - sorted
 * "who continue to make the belts as of 2018," - sentence randomly ends with a comma - sorted
 * Don't use grey text in the current holders table - sorted
 * The big block quote references someone called Smith, but there is no indication who he/she is - sorted
 * "One first of the belts" - makes no sense - sorted
 * "they all were all sold together." - don't need two "alls" - sorted
 * Theft section should be converted into prose - done
 * The info on three-time, two-time and one-time winners should be merged into one table. Multi-time winners would appear more than once, with a symbol/colour to indicate second/third wins - done, looks much better!
 * No need for "See also" link to Championship belt as it is already linked in the text - done
 * HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

and apologies have been very busy at work lately. Could you please bear with me till the end of next weekend? i will work on the changes then. Many thanks for your helpful tips. kind regards - Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

, good to see you back. Ping me when you have made the changes as I probably won't remember to check back otherwise..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * and, ive finally had time to go through all the points/suggestions you made. I believe i have addressed them all now. The article certainly looks much better for it. It's amazing what a different pair of eyes can notice! Thanks for your patience. Kind regards -- Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * WRT the outright winners table, I was more thinking that you'd have multi-time winners listed multiple times, with colour/symbol to highlight the second/third wins, so Henry Cooper would appear three times. As it is, the table gives no indication of when he won his first or second belts, and using this methodology if a boxer currently with one belt to his name won a second, the first would disappear?  Also, I still think the lead is too short and could do with beefing up a bit, also a seven sentence lead really shouldn't be broken up into four paragraphs, two of them only being one sentence long..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, in my head the reference link would explain, but just adding the individual outright wins makes more sense, so done. I have beefed up the lead, now only 2 paragraphs, covering every part of the article. Hope this is better?

Kind regards, --Okeeffemarc (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support — I fixed the table and some CS1 errors and now I'm happy to support. Great article.-- Lirim  |  Talk  06:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone else have an opinion either way? The nature of my work means that il have very restricted internet access in a few weeks time till September.

kind regards, --Okeeffemarc (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a few little tweaks but I'm going to say support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment I see an issue with the "current holder" table, unfortunately only the start of their reign is cited, nothing appears to cite that, as of now, they remain belt holders. And nothing is verifying the vacant belts either. And some images in the "outright winners" section wouldn't go amiss, the table is very narrow as it stands and therefore presents a huge amount of whitespace... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have put a source at the bottom of the table, which verifies who the current holders are and which belts are vacant. I've added some images to the 'outright winners" section which i hope adds some interesting facts. Please let me know if there is anything else. I will be working on the comments below. --Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I've had a look over this article, and I'm afraid that I don't feel that it is at FL level just yet, and could probably do with a thorough peer review first.
 * The first thing that jumps out to me is the sourcing – a lot of the publishers in the References section don't have Wikipedia articles, which makes me wonder whether they're reliable enough to be cited in this list. ChampsUK, for example, is a personal website maintained by a maintained a married couple, and therefore doesn't really have the level of editorial oversight that we require for FLs. Overtime Online is currently down, but apparently it is "run by Sport Journalism and Travel Journalism students from the University of Bright", so is probably not really reliable enough either. The second link in the External Links section is a blog written by someone who is, by his own admission, not a journalist. Tapology could be okay, but I'm a little wary of how their About Us page lists their editorial team by their forum handles rather than their actual names. I'm also very suspicious of the reliability of any source that spells the word News with a z.

'''I have replaced these sources with more reliable ones and have had a look at the rest. Definitely a lesson in paying better attention.'''
 * That wasn't an exhaustive list from me, it was just a few sources that I found during a few spotchecks. I haven't checked, for examples, whether merseyboxers.org.uk is reliable, or Boxing News Online, or Britishboxer.co.uk, or MTK Global, or 32RED.COM. This is the sort of thing that would ideally be done first at a peer review before the article is listed at WP:FLC. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think that this article could do with a completely restructured layout – speaking as a boxing ignorant pleb, I couldn't entirely follow it at times. I'd suggest merging the National Sporting Club, British Boxing Board of Control and Changes sections as subsections of one level 2 header (called, say, "History") that charts the chronological history of the belt.

I have done as you've advised, i think it flows much better.
 * I was thinking something more like this. The content of the "Changes" section could then be merged into the relevant subsection of "History". Please revert if you don't agree with this idea. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That Eurosport quote is way too long (it makes up more than half the prose in the Changes section), and could definitely be put in Wikipedia's voice instead. Who is "Rose"?

'''Done. Roses' identity is clarified. '''
 * Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that you needed to embed the audio file of the quote being spoken out loud into the article – I meant that any relevant info from the quote could be kept in the text, just rewritten into Wikipedia's own words. Happy to help if needed. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "1980's and 90's". Per MOS:DECADE, this should be "1980s and 1990s". - sorted
 * I'm still seeing "1980's and 90's" in the lead. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Every single publisher in the References section is italicised, even ones that probably shouldn't be. BoxRec, for example, would not normally have its name in italics. Neither would BBC News nor Sky Sports. There may be more.

'''I have been using the 'Cite' tab in visual editor. It italicises books, newspapers and websites, so i assumed this was correct. Are you absolutely sure this is wrong? If so do you know a way of manually changing every single reference? Im not even sure how to change the font of the reference as it doesn't specify in the source.'''
 * I've just reread MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, and apparently what you've done is fine, so just ignore me. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "liverpool echo" should be in capitals. - done
 * Sorry, I meant citation 134. It needs to say "Liverpool Echo". You can remove the all caps "LIVERPOOL ECHO" from the article. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

quite a few comments here to deal with, are you intending to address them? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Good evening, i have just come back from being away at work. i will look at addressing these points in the next day or two. Kind regards, --Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Good morning, thanks for your comments, they've certainly helped to improve the article significantly. I've answered your points in bold, please let me know what you think? --Okeeffemarc (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Good evening, thanks again for your helpful comments and feedback.
 * 1. WRT sources, i have had another look at the sources used in the article. I have changed a couple more to better known sources, but it has to be said that the information is exactly the same. I am 100% confident in the integrity snd accuracy of this article and therefore see no need for a peer review. It's already had a GA review.


 * 2. I see what you mean now by the layout. It flows nicely like this, thank you.


 * 3. I quite like the quote in full, as it gives context to what the Lonsdale badge means.


 * 4. Sorry i don't know if im being blind...i can't see anymore 2-digit years?


 * 5. Thank goodness i don't need to de-italicise 203 references! i have sorted out Liverpool Echo.

for information, im away with work from this Sunday for a few months. I work at sea so the internet connection i get is comparable to the internet circa 1996 and is heavily restricted. Kind regards --Okeeffemarc (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.