Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lonsdale Belt/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2018 [1].


Lonsdale Belt[edit]

Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article explains the origins of the oldest boxing championship belt in the UK and arguably the world. It also details the rules for holding the belt and how they have changed, the inaugural winners at each weight, and lists every single outright winner. Information about thefts and sales are also featured. I have enjoyed expanding and improving this article over the past few months. i believe it is now in a good state and would love for more people to learn about this prestigious prize, and it's winners. Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Support, a beautiful article which is detailed in the long history of the belt - you should be proud! Coventryy (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Now this is a topic that is completely new to me. The article looks fascinating at first glance, but I do have a question about whether FAC is the right place for it. Looking at the article, it appears that most of the content consists of various tables that list the champions over time. With that in mind, I'm wondering whether this page should be at featured list candidates instead of here. Most of the time, we consider articles that are mostly tables to be lists, and there are only a handful or so of paragraphs in the body. If those paragraphs were converted into a History section above the tables, and some formatting improvements were made to the tables themselves, you'd have quite a nice FLC candidate in my view. I don't want to stand in the way if others think this belongs at FAC, but I would consider it a list personally. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Evening Giants2008, thanks for your comments. I would prefer that it remain a FAC. Whilst i see your point, i think there is enough prose to sufficiently and succinctly cover the main aspects of the belts history, rules and controversies to warrant it remaining an article rather than a list. If there is wider consensus that this should be a list however, then i'll be a team player and do as you suggest. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Mmm, looking at the page for the first time I thought it looked more like a list than an article and I came here to see if anyone shared that opinion -- obviously so, and since the FLC director and a FAC coordinator are of similar mind, I think it's reasonable to close this down and look at re-nominating at FLC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
N.B. While we often just TNT noms that we're closing over procedural issues, I'll archive this to preserve what commentary we've had as it may still aid a future FLC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • The image sourcing is inadequate for all the images. Who created them, when/where were they first published, and where were the images found? I see no proof that the author of the images were "anonymous"; because no source is given at all. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Evening FunkMonk, sorry for the late reply, i am at sea at the moment so the internet connection is reminiscent of my parents desktop circa 1999! I have removed The Henry Cooper image and re-tagged the belt images. Completely forgot about the image information. kind regards Okeeffemarc (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
ALright, so if I udnerstand correctly, you took those photos yourself? In that case, you also have to add a public domain tag for the artworks. Do we know who the artist was and when he died? And the photo you removed should be nominated for deletion on Commons if it is not actually free. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.