Talk:Félix Trinidad

Good Article nomination

I will go ahead and nominate this, chances are that the review wil take place after the Roy Jones wave has died so that should be controlable. Thanks to all that have helped with this page, especially to Michael Devore for his great text cleanup, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fail GA Review

1. Prose- Not Pass. Wikipedia:Lead section needs to me more general. It can include some fight details, but not all. The prose might us sum comma's before introductory phrases, depending on your interpretation of grammar rules. The detail of each fight makes the text a little unreadable at times as a fight shifts from round to round. It might suggest reducing the fight detail and adding more information about the setting, net profit, hype, or other outside matters concerning the fights.

2. Verifiable- Not Pass. The part above "Winning and defending the world title" needs to be sourced. One citation at the end of a few sentences from one source only will suffice for having the same reference after each sentence.

3. Coverage-Not Pass. Lots of details about fights but less so about early life or outside of boxing. What's the story with that produced the other child? When did he have his kids?

4. Neutral- Almost Pass-There are some instances of wording in the fight details that favor Trinidad. Examples: "Trinidad's eye was conspicuously swollen" and "Opening the final round Vargas pursued his adversary." Also, not much information mentioned about other fighters. There shouldn't be that much, but a little would help.

5. Stable- Check

6. Image- Check. It would be nice to have a picture of him boxing, but not required to pass.

I hope these suggestions will help improve this article. As always, please feel free to write on this talk page if you have any questions. When you are finished addressing these issues, please feel free to renominate this article. I will try to review the article promptly. You can also seek a second opinion if you think I made a mistake in my evaluation. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with most of this review and will renominate, this at worst was "on-hold" worthy not just fail, the references there are covering the text provided and I can't see how adding more details about his childs (ie non notble people) is nessesary, the reference in "Winning and defending the world title" actually covers the entire section it was just a matter of placing it correctly, all issues that don't merit a direct fail. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern with the children wasn't that it was the most notable information. It was to fix a style problem at the end of the section Personal life. It is awkward to have one sentence about his fifth daughter as his its own paragraph. We don't need to go over every year his children were born, but a general snapshot would be nice. Was his fifth child an affair? As the text reads, I am not sure and am left wondering. What I meant about the sourcing was that, in places, you have a citation after almost every sentence even though you haven't changed sources. One citation after a group of sentence, if the source hasn't changed, looks stylistically better. Sometimes, you also don't source the last sentence of a paragraph. If you want second look, you can post the article under Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. You will get feedback on the article much more quickly.

As for the difference between hold and fail, it's really anyone's call between how long it will take to improve an article. I thought, for some of my suggestions under 1 and 3, that new content would have to be added and it would take a long time to do so. Regardless, I don't like to keep a person waiting. I wouldn't let the article have to wait another few months to gain approval. I would approve the article within a few days of its nomination if it addressed the problems listed in my review. You spent too much time waiting for this review and I wouldn't want you to wait that long again.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I was the one who broke out that paragraph from the preceding paragraph, I will defend it. Single-line paragraphs are acceptable in writing if used sparingly, even celebrated literature will use them on occasion. Hard rules, such as no single or two-line paragraphs, should not universally apply without exception. The preceding paragraph related a story about his relationship with Sharon Santiago, how they met, and their relationship. Tacking on an end sentence about the fifth daughter not with Santiago is out of place for that paragraph; it simply does not belong there. It is more awkward to place it there than on its own. I don't feel that readability or flow is significantly affected the way it is written.

You might argue that the new paragraph should be expanded, but that is a content issue, and I'm not sure it is necessary. Caribbean H.Q. make a good point that further discussion of the daughter is not notable for the article.

If you feel that the awkwardness of the single-line paragraph exceeds the awkwardness of grafting it onto the previous paragraph, I would accept the opinion of one of the professional copy-editors on Wikipedia to that effect as more informed than my own. Perhaps one of them could be invited in for a brief consultation on the matter. I can suggest a few names if necessary. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. You can ask a second opinion.User:calbear22 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

More detail on how exactly he ended up with a fifth daughter is pretty much redundant, my point was that saying the article is lacking broadness based on that matter is erroneous, lets take Lee Smith (baseball) as a example, that article is featured and it contains less information about his early and personal life than this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no notability requirement for what information is relevant to the subject or not, it's a subjective decision that is made on an article by article basis. As for Lee Smith, I'm not so sure I would have supported that article's nomination. Even so, that article has to be seen in a different light. There is a lot more media about sports figures now and their personal lives than there was during Lee's career. I'm really interested in seeing what the reassessment will have to say. I don't think I am wrong on this, but maybe I am.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]Ah, just to make sure we're talking about the same "second opinion" idea, do you prefer that Caribbean H.Q., as nominator and primary author, request a second opinion on GA review, or do you prefer that I get a second opinion on the fifth daughter sentence? I should be able to rustle someone up fairly quickly to resolve this issue, if the latter. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The second opinion idea. We could put the article up for reassessment since Caribbean H.Q. seemed to question my total review of the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave that up you and Caribbean H.Q. to work out, then. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Félix Trinidad/1. I'm having the article reassessed because of the questioning of my review.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)