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)

Almost forgot. Caribbean H.Q., if you want to avoid further debate over the fifth daughter single-sentence paragraph, I (or someone else) can rework it into the first paragraph's sentence "Trinidad is married to Sharon Santiago with whom he has four daughters." When you asked me for copyedits, I minimized content moves/alterations to maintain your original style as much as possible, but this shouldn't be a big change. Obviously any change here won't fix the bulk of the GA conflict, but it might make this little bit a teensy more smooth for GA/GAR. Up to you. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a Felix Trinidad piece that isn't tainted by some idiotic FALSE handwrap scandal. Thanks to some of the newer writers who helped write a piece that makes more sense and is befitting a man of Tito's class in and out of the ring. FINALLY, someone managed to force the idiot teenager who kept editing GARBAGE from MaxBoxing.com.

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)

I've done an independent review of this article, and in general agree with Calbear22's assessment. The main areas in which this article fails to meet the good article criteria is not following WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT#Headers and paragraphs. At present, the lead is too detailed and should be edited down to focus on the most relevant information; per WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis, "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole".

A number of paragraphs need to be better focussed to meet the good article criteria and WP:Layout. The second paragraph in "Early Years", for example, has a split focus: The beginning talks about Trinidad's disagreement with the boxing federation, but then, before that story is finished, the paragraph jumps through his first fight and starts discussing the details of a particular bout. Try to split up this kind of paragraph, expanding where necessary, so that each paragraph has a clear, single focus. See WP:Paragraph for more hints on how to achieve this.

I also noticed a few minor grammatical errors. While these are not a big deal and easy to correct, the article will have to be scanned quite carefully before being promoted. Some examples of errors I found (and fixed):

• "both boxers fell to the floor in what was ruled as 'accidental slips'" (was should be were)
• "during the eight and ninth, and tenth rounds." (should be "eight, ninth, and tenth")

One other concern, entirely due to my personal ignorance of Spanish language and culture: The main reference used in this article is a book by Luis Santiago Arce, and "Santiago" is the name of Félix's wife. I assume these are different people and "Santiago" is merely a common Puerto Rica name, but felt I should confirm as a book by the subject's wife probably isn't a good reference for a biographical article.

Some other specific feedback, not all relevant to GA status:

• In the lead, there's a clause, "lost by technical knockout following the intervention of his father." The father's intervention should be specified, as at present it feels like the reader is being "teased".
• In the third para of "Winning and defending the world title", in says "...Trinidad exchanged several combinations, injuring Campa' face and breaking his nose. In the fourth round the referee stopped the fight, marking the first defeat in Campas' career". Why, specifically, did he lose? The fact that he broke he injured his opponent implies to a non-boxing fan such as myself that he would have won the fight.
• The forth paragraph in the same section ends with "the referee stopped the fight by technical knockout" but doesn't say who won (at least not to a general reader).
• In the last paragraph of that section, "De" is uncapitalised in "Oscar de la Hoya" but then later capitalised whenever "De la Hoya" appears on its own. Is this correct? I'm really not sure, but would be surprised if it ought not be consistent everywhere.
• Regarding the single sentence paragraph: well it's true that an occasional single sentence paragraph is definitely acceptable, but "are unusually emphatic" not afterthoughts (WP:Paragraphs). In either case, I've done a slight readjustment in that section to expanded the "fifth daughter" paragraph.
• I notice that the same reference is often used multiple times in one paragraph. I would be better, I think, to only have a single inline citation at the end of the paragraph, in this case. If the article does keep the current citation format, I'd recommend used the <ref name="label"> format for subsequent uses of the same reference; this is easier to maintain and provides a clearer layout for editors.
• Very minor, but if possible an image of Trinidad in a boxing "outfit" would be a much better fit for the lead image; showing him at a military facility as the lead image gives the reader the impression that that's the main focus of the article.

As I said above, overall I agree with the original decision not to pass the article just yet. Once the concerns raised my your two reviews have been addressed, I encourage you to renominate the article.--jwanders^Talk 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) --jwanders^Talk 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I am currently leaving for college but will attend these points as soon as I log back in. Luis Santiago Arce is a newspaper reporter for El Nuevo Dia, "Santiago" its a very common surname in Puerto Rico due to its Spanish origin, the fact that both the reporter and the person interviewed share it is most likely a conincidence. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now closed the discussion, as there has been no activity for 15 days. When you've addressed all of the concerns raised, you can renominate at WP:GAN. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 09:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)