Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mexican National Lightweight Championship/archive1

Mexican National Lightweight Championship

Mexican National Lightweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Mexican National Lightweight Championship/archive1

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it matches the format and quality content of a number of other professional wrestling championship featured lists that I have maintained over the years and this would be another article towards a potential Featured Topic I have been working on off and on over the years. After each FL review I have gone through I have made sure to apply feedback from those to future FL candidates including this one.  MPJ-US  03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

All Comments by Adam Cuerden addressed

Comment I'd suggest the lead could use some more explicit sources in the second paragraph, for things like the car accident and such. I know it's more-or-less justified by the list, but I think this is one of those cases where citing the lead would be appropriate. I don't think you need to worry about simple numerical facts about the list, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Both the wrestling title book (G1) and the article on the Mexican Championship (G2) do both mention the accident and death of the champion but I can can go look for a separate source on his death, since it's such a tragic event I believe I can find an independent source if I just look for it. MPJ-US  11:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I don't think it necessarily needs a separate source, though if you have one, that certainly won't hurt. It's just one of those best practice things. I think this is a strong list. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Adam Cuerden: I gotcha, I pulled the general source up into the main text to cover a couple of items. Please let me know if you see anything else I can address MPJ-US  22:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good! Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

All Comments by ChrisTheDude addressed

Quick drive-by comment (will be back with more later) - the article says that Damiancito el Guerrero won the title under that na,e and then changed his name to Virus later, but our article on him says that he was already known as Virus when he won this belt - which is correct? If he was still known as Damiancito then the caption "Pierrothito (In blue), the 48th champion and the first Mini-Estrella to hold the championship." isn't accurate, because if Damiancito won the match under that name then he was technically still a mini..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC) You know I never really thought about that one and reading the Virus article it does say he won it as Virus. Looking at all the sources I can find for a quick scan here is what I see. Damiancito starts working against non-Minis at the beginning of 1998. He wins the title as Damiencito and then changes his name during the title reign to Virus. I see notes in places that he definitly won as Damiencito and later had title defenses as Virus. I will have to reread the 1998 year in review magazine i have, it's in Spanish so it takes me a bit longer with Google translate and stuff, so I'll see what if anything it says on the matter. Whatever the source supports I will make sure to adjust either this article or the Virus one so they match. MPJ-US  23:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC) So here is what my research has found While still billed as "Damiancito" he began wrestling in the regular division in January 1998, no longer considered a mini He won the title as Damiancito (1998 year in review lists the match) He later changed name to Virus (1998 year in review lists Virus as the champion at the end of the year and lists the date he won the title as Damiancito) The list will be updated to list him as Damiancito/Virus. I will work on Virus' article to ensure it matches. He was not considered a Mini-Estrella at that point so the caption etc. remains correct. Does that work?  MPJ-US  03:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Comments Thanks for clarifying the Damiancito situation. Here's some other comments....... "it does not promote the events in which the title is defended" - is it an American usage to say that the title is defended "in" an event? As a BrEng speaker I would say the title was defended "at" an event........... Changed to "at", I think either is okay technically but I agree "At" sounds better "Where the title was brought back after being inactive for approximately four years" - should be "when" the title...... Man that's embarrassing, fixed " The championship has been Vacated on a number of occasions" - no reason for capital letter on "vacated" Fixed "the champion was not Mexican citizen" => "the champion was not a Mexican citizen" Fixed "Juan Diaz has held the championship 1,979 days" => "Juan Diaz held the championship for 1,979 days" Fixed You have "Championship vacated when Chamaco Valaguez moved up a weight class" but "Championship vacated when Aristole moves up a weight class". The tenses should all be the same. Similarly you have "Defeated Negro Casas in a tournament final", but slightly further down you have "wins tournament". Again, the tenses should be the same. Went through the table, all past tense now. For Pierrothito's reign, the table says "Championship vacated due to inactivity.", but further down in the details of the 2013 tournament you say "CMLL announced that the Mexican National Lightweight Championship had been vacated, without stating specifically why previous champion Pierrothito had been stripped of the championship" Yeah it was obviously for inactivity, but that's not cited anywhere so I changed it to them not specifying why. In the Pierrothito image caption, there is no need for a capital on "in" Fixed "In 2008 the Mexican National Lightweight Championship was reindtroduced" - last word is spelt wrongly Fixed For the 2013 tournament you say that "They also announced a 10-man tournament", yet there are 12 competitors listed. Man it's right there too and I still counted it wrong. Fixed and I am signing up for remedial math ;-) " The most recent case of this is Mephisto holding the NWA World Welterweight Championship, a belt with a 78 kg (172 lb) upper limit, despite weighing 90 kg (200 lb)" - this wording has been used in similar articles for quite a while now, and it's nearly 7 years since Mephisto won that title. Is this still definitely the most recent case? I don't know if "most recent" is a 100% true statement, but it is one of the most obvious cases in recent years as he's quite a bit over the weight limit. Reworded to reflect that instead. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC) It totally does, thank you for your input @ChrisTheDude: and I believe I have addressed it all. MPJ-US  00:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

All Comments by Human3015 addressed

Though it is a "featured list candidate" still it is currently a "B class" article instead of "List class".--Human3015 It will rain  06:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC) I am not sure exactly how the rules are with list articles, to me "list" is a type, not a class so I have this a B as it is the highest rating it can get without reviews and consensus. It is quite clearly all about the list in this article after all. But i got no problem changing it if that causes less confusion.  MPJ-US  12:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"List" is a "Class" not "type", you can see Category:List-Class articles. Anyway, thanks for doing change in class of this article. List otherwise seems ok to be called as FL. Good work. --Human3015 ^{It will rain}  15:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All Comments by ChrisTheDude addressed

A few more comments...... Photo caption: "Ricky Marvin, held the championship in 2001" => "Ricky Marvin, who held the championship in 2001" "The official definition of the lightweight weight class in Mexico is between 63 kg (139 lb) and 70 kg (150 lb), but is not always strictly enforced" => "The official definition of the lightweight weight class in Mexico is between 63 kg (139 lb) and 70 kg (150 lb), but the weight limits for the different classes are not always strictly enforced" - this works better with the note, given that it refers to a different class "When the title was brought back after being inactive for approximately four years it was contested for in the Mini-Estrellas division exclusively." => "Since the title was brought back after being inactive for approximately four years it has been contested in the Mini-Estrellas division exclusively." Thinks that's it, tweak those and we're all good :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: - Thank you for the feedback, all excellent suggestions that I have taken. Let me know if there is anything else that catches your eye. MPJ-US  21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Very well done list article. Well organized, well sourced, and informative. I only have a single note. and it's pretty trivial, but the last line of the lead, the phrase "the longest individual reign" seems unclear to me. Perhaps the word continuous is a better choice? But even with that, I vote Support. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review

As far as I can tell with my poor and very rusty Spanish, the sources are reliable. Spot checks have shown the information claimed in the article is correct and no copyvios have been found (again with the proviso that my Spanish isn't good, so I wouldn't spot a copyvio through translation anyway!) Four points for you to address:

• The section Reigns by combined length has no citations

• This section is simply adding up the data in the first table, the first table is totally sourced so I did not see a need to repeat the citations for this section.

• Technically that would fall foul of WP:OR. I suggest you add the G1 and 2 refs to the top of the table (next to the "Wrestler" column heading) to ensure there the information is covered with a source. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Technically it does not, it falls under "routine calculations" which has it's own subsection. It is simply adding up number of days from the table above.  MPJ-US  12:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• But it still needs to carry the citations, regardless of whether they are addedup or not. At the moment you have a whole section without a source, and you ca't claim that it's being supported by citations from other sections. I'm afraid I can't promote it until the section has references to support the information. - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well if that's the criteria then G1 and G2 are insufficient, that only covers through 2004. Now I can repeat the citations, not a problem since they're already there, I am just failing to see the reason why a repeated fact has to be cited again. MPJ-US  12:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:INTEGRITY: "adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, of violations of the sourcing policy, and even of plagiarism." As this is aiming at featured content, it needs to be watertight in what information it contains, and in the formatting that justifies its inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting read, and since the sources are in the article it probably took me less time to add them than to read that link ;-) MPJ-US  12:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• The difference is now that if you don't ever return to WP again for some reason, the information is nicely sourced and won't be tagged for FLRC for having a whole section without references because other people don't have the references to check. It's as much about protecting the article as anything else. -SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• G1 and FNs 2 and 3 are from books: you need to include the publishing location

• Found locations for both and added them

• G2 and FN1 have inconsistent date formats with all other dates on the page

• Fixed

• FN 13: we can swap out the shouty caps

• Looking at it I had already half way fixed it, now it's 100% fixed.

– SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, I appreciate it. And considering I work on so much Mexican stuff I have to admit my Spanish is not that great either, I rely heavily on translation tools - which is a pain for magazines but it's all for the love of lucha libre ;-) I added comments to each specific issue.  MPJ-US  11:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)