Wikipedia:Peer review/Boone Kirkman/archive1

Boone Kirkman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is approaching GA level (quality not length), and I wanted to see what you guys think of the quality of the article and if another couple of sections can be eked out or not. Thank you! MobileSnail 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Pretty good work. In most athlete articles I've read, the author gives short shrift to anything other than the athletic career. I like big "early life" and "post career" sections. I do have a few questions and concerns about small things.
• What was his mother's name?

Done Found it. MobileSnail 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Watch your verb tenses. You frequently switch from simple past tense to past perfect and variations. Say "he did" rather than "he would do".

Done I think. I'm not sure exactly what instances you are referring to, but found what I think to be a few tense changes which I fixed during a copyedit. One sentence that remains somewhat past perfect is "...he was never given the chance to prepare". I'm not sure how to reword that one. MobileSnail 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• In "Post-Foreman", the ranked opponent wikilink is a bit of an Easter Egg ... could you reword it to mention the ranking system of the wiki article?

Done Fixed that (hopefully). MobileSnail 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why was the Kirkman-Norton fight stopped by the referee? Cite it.

Done Was a referee technical decision, but there were no special circumstances that ended the bout. Has been cited.

• I'd like to see more information from media coverage, which I find gives a great accounting of sporting events. For older topics like this one, it's difficult to find these accounts online, but they're well worth the effort of digging up offline items. You might try Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, or the New York Times, all of which have extensive online archives.

Searching now. I am also trying to dig up an image where I can at least contact the copyright owner regarding its possible use. MobileSnail 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think you've got the bones of a good article here, but try to put some muscle onto it by consulting more sources. A nitpicking editor might also contest some of the existing sources on reliability grounds. Be sure to have arguments ready to support them or find sources you know are reliable. Keep up the good work, and let me know if I can help! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One question: do you believe there is a saturation of citations, or have I used them fairly appropriately? MobileSnail 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear by what you mean by "saturation". I think you're getting close to the point where if you need to add something, you're better off trying to find another source ... if I'm passing an article for featured status, I don't like seeing too much reliance on one or two sources.

• Watch yourself on weasel words like "remarkably" and "only". Unless you explain why something is remarkable or why a figure is small enough to be considered "only", you're starting to bring a point of view into the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• It says "210 lbs". The abbreviation for pounds is 'lb' not 'lbs'. Adding a kg value would help make the article accessible worldwide.
• It has links to dates (e.g. 1966), common English terms (e.g 'nurse, American), and repeated geographical items (e.g. 'Seattle, Washington'). Low value links dilute the effect of high value links. You may wish to reconsider these.
• It uses lots of flag icons. I think the article would be better without these.
• It uses flag icons in the table as the only code for nationality. If nationality is important, it should be available in text form for readers that don't can't break the flag code, or view the article as text.
• It has section headings "Kirkman-Foreman", "Post-Foreman", and "Upset by Memphis Al Jones and Afterwards". These may be meaningful to people that know the subject, but they could be made more meaningful for less knowleadgeable readers. For example, the 'Kirkman-Foreman' section doesn't use that term within the section but it does mention that it is a fight. Similarly, the word 'upset' is not mentioned in the section and it isn't clear what it means, the section mentions the more plain English term 'loss'. Perhaps the section titles could mention fights and replace the word 'loss' with 'upset'.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)