Talk:Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 4, 2008

.

This article is part of WikiProject Boxing, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Boxing "To Do"

[edit] GA on Hold

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
1)The lead needs to be expanded. The first sentence needs to explain what the fight was, was it a boxing match? a wrestling match? A street fight?
2)The championships that Lewis and Tyson held, need to be Wiklinked, so a user can know what the championship is.
3)The lead should also explain whether it was broadcasted on pay-per-view, live television, etc.
4)The lead should also state the record of each fighter, (i.e 4-5-0)
5)In the fourth paragraph, the word "land it" is unencyclopedic, rewording is need there.
6)The prose of this article need to be merged, into one or two big articles, having 1 sentence and then splitting into a new paragraph is not apart of the MoS.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
1)The article needs more sourcing, in the first paragraph of the "general information section", the referee's 20th bout needs to be verified, as well as the weight of Lewis and Tyson.
2)The fourth paragraph needs to be sourced, the verifiability of Las Vegas rejecting the fight needs to be checked.
3)Also the celebrity attendants, also needs to be sourced.
4)Also, the article heavily relies on This one source
5)Most of the article is unsourced and could be original research. Please source, unverified claims, especially the fight section, which needs to be sourced, and the wording needs to be improved.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
1)In the third paragraph of the general information section, "they came to see the biggest event..." that paragraph sounds biased, and should be reworded.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
1)The poster needs to be in the infobox, to illustrate the event.
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall this article does not meet the GA Criteria, and it was just created less than a week ago, and should have gone through peer review before nomination. I will give the article 1 week, to be revamped and have the claims above, fixed before I can fail or pass it.--~SRS~ 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article might qualify for quick-fail, so we'll see. iMatthew 2008 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Sorry, users who have worked on this article, but this article was just created, and lacks sources and needs a more neutral point of view, once these are adressed, please dont hesitate to renominate it, but for now, this article does not pass. (qualifies under quick fail criteria)~SRS~ 19:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)