Talk:Cutman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cutman was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-04-04

Cutman has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Cutman was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Contents 1 GA nom has failed 2 Peer review comments 3 Check this out... 4 Good article failed

[edit] GA nom has failed

The Good article nomination for Cutman has failed for the following reason:

The article does not have sufficient content, and the tools section is in bad shape (lists that could be expanded into encyclopedic content). -- King of Hearts ^talk 04:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article - it's good to have feedback.

The article does not have sufficient content: Could you expand on that? What content is missing, specifically?

the tools section is in bad shape (lists that could be expanded into encyclopedic content): I've made some improvements to the lists by adding some definitions to the list items. I believe that lists are the most appropriate format for listing cutmen's tools and medications. As Wikipedia Help states, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists ... grouped by theme." Could you look at the new version and see what you think?

Thanks! CasualFighter 16:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You could address different careers in that field and their outlook and prospects. The second paragraph in the lead describing the jobs as a cutman is a bit short; possibly expand it into a new section. -- King of Hearts ^talk 23:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There isn't much variation in cutman careers per se - the field is very small. I see what you are saying, though; let me see if there is more to say on the topics I cover in the second paragraph.-- CasualFighter 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review comments

Comments from the peer review are copied here for my convinience. :) -- CasualFighter 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a good, informative, well-written article, and one that very usefully fills a niche of missing information in the mixed martial arts sphere. Congratulations! I did find a few ways I think it could be improved however:-

• I'm not entirely sure how, but I think the opening paragraph needs a re-think, bearing in mind the usual considerations of how much a reader who is ignorant of the general topic, or one who had come from an oblique link (e.g. someone following a link from the film article Million Dollar Baby), would understand the context. Although you've obviously written it with this in mind, I'm not sure it currently goes quite far enough. It's not really clear for example, if we assume the reader knows nothing about combat sports, that cutmen operate only during the breaks between rounds!
  • This is mentioned in "Treatments". Should it be mentioned in the opening paragraph too? Shawnc 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing I've seen in the article explains *why* cuts stop fights (i.e. what are the safety considerations that cause combat sport fights to be stopped on cuts), and which ones are more likely to stop them than others. This is a central discussion for this article... although it's almost begging to be, or be part of a separate article and have a summary section here. It may already exist - whatever, it needs to be part of this article or linked and highlighted here. Let me know if you need help on this.
• I would like to see inline reference links, I think this would make the references a lot more usable and help kickstart a reader's personal research. Done. --CasualFighter 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Vaseline may be a genericised trademark in most of the English-speaking world, but unless the non-brand term for it is unrecognisable, I still think it's better/safer to refer to it by it's non-brand name (in this case, Petroleum jelly). Or perhaps Vaseline (petroleum jelly) in the article. Done.--CasualFighter 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• The article could generally do with more wikification of terms. For example, there's a solid article on Nosebleeds (which is also the article for Broken Nose). Even some terms that currently don't seem to have an article could do with a wiki-link where an article would be useful - what about Athletic Commission, a term that would not be immediately understandable even to many semi-informed readers? The article could be wikified a lot more than it currently is, and I think this would be of use to many readers. Again, this is an area I feel qualified to help directly with if you wish assistance. Done.--CasualFighter 13:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• To cover the entirety of a subject, you need to think laterally. Cutmen (or at least corner-men acting in a cutman capacity) have been important in fiction - Million Dollar Baby, Rocky, probably several others. A "cutmen in fiction" section would probably be good. Done! This section could also be expanded later. --CasualFighter 20:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all that occurs to me for now, I hope it's helpful. Good show. --Estarriol ^talk 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is an interesting article, but it's got a big problem in that it talks about normal practices for cutmen and such without citing any reference works on their practices or routines. Is it just your opinion and observations or did you get it from reading a book? If it came from books and magazines, or documentaries, the article needs to cite them, otherwise it's full of original research. Night Gyr 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad, I missed the section at the end of references. This is why inline cites are useful. More inline cites mean that it'll be easier to see where you're drawing your facts from. Night Gyr 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Done! --CasualFighter 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Should there be a link to this article in combat sport articles such as boxing and MMA? Shawnc 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Done! --CasualFighter 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• If I may add a comment... perhaps a list of famous cutmen should be included into the article. The article does a great job of describing the duties of the cutman, but neglects to talk about real ones. Hope that helps. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Done! -- CasualFighter 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check this out...

Common Sparring Injuries

That's a list of some common sparring injuries. The article gives a brief outline of the nature and treatment of several injuries not covered by this article. Consider adding some of those to this article, if at all relevant. Hope this helps. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a good resource. I'll need to read through it more carefully to see if any of the injuries described would normally be treated by a cutman, but this one is definitely making the reference list. --CasualFighter 20:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article failed

1. Well written?: Fail. About two-thirds of the article is made up of bullet lists, which can be expanded. Headline text should not be wikilinked (you can fix this by wikilinking the first mention of the topic in the first sentence). I'm not sure that the "in popular culture" needs to exist at all- you could sum it up in "fiction with boxing".

• Nuber of bulleted lists I feel that the bullets are used appropriately. Perhaps expanding on the history of the profession will make them less jarring for those who do not like the bulleet formatting. -CasualFighter 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Headline text should not be wikilinked - Done. Thank you! -CasualFighter 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Popular culture section was added as a result of peer review. Since it seems that the other wikieditors of this article took the most interest in that section, it's probably prudent to leave it in. :) -CasualFighter 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Sufficient references for an article of this size.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. Doesn't cover the history of the profession at all- I'm assuming that cutmen didn't just appear beside the fight ring one day.

Great suggestion. Thank you! -CasualFighter 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass.

5. Article stability? Pass.

6. Images?: Pass. --Wafulz 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! -CasualFighter 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)