Talk:Danny Green (boxer)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Oldelpaso (talk · contribs) 16:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is generally in quite good shape, and it is a shame the nominator has left Wikipedia, as while I've put it on hold, it shouldn't be too hard to polish.

At one paragraph, the lead is too short to adequately summarise the article.
There are a few too many short paragraphs starting "on date, X happened" or similar. Some of these could be worked into the surrounding text to improve flow and reduce repetition.
~~Is secondsout.com a reliable source? It has a link titled "write 4 us" on every page. Similarly, is [1] reliable? It reads like a press release.~~
Given the many different organisations that issue a “world title” belt, how well regarded were his titles?
"Green finished his amateur career with a record of 35 – 8 (21) and a 16 – 6 international record." - the way this is presented as a quote floating on its own seems odd. As the first win-loss record mentioned, this notation should be explained for the unfamiliar reader.
“Professional career” has a sort of mini-lead of its own. The way that this breaks chronology is jarring. Perhaps a combination of moving it to the lead and providing a summary at the end of the section would be preferable.
The disqualification against Beyer could be worded more clearly - it does not directly state that he was disqualified. I had to read it more than once to work out the meaning - that Green was disqualified as a result of a cut caused by a headbutt, but disputed the decision. The lack of clarity also makes it come across as overly sympathetic to Green.
~~“Green challenged Anthony Mundine to step into the ring with him” - at this point in the article we do not know who Mundine is, so a little explanation would be useful~~
Were any specific reasons given for his 2009 comeback?
~~“The incident received criticism from known boxing sources outside of Australia” the use of “known” is unusual phrasing.~~

A couple more that are perhaps ones for future development as opposed to GA:

A number of well developed sports biographies have a section about the athlete’s style or technique. Is Green particularly known for any type of fighting style or does he have a trademark punch he is known for? e.g. is he an inside fighter who likes to trade blows, or someone who works off the jab?.
Green appears to have fought largely in his home country, and some of the bigger names he has fought have been well into the veteran age bracket (Jones was 40, Tarver 42). Has this resulted in any criticism / accusations of record-padding? Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

I'll start working through the list (I've changed the bullets to numbers to help keep track.

Will do later
Will do later
As for the reliability of secondsout, I think the reliability of the author is more critical, and it seems that Paul Upham is a respected journalist, not just a general user - he wrote one of the books used as a general ref too. The "saving man" info is also mentioned in a Herald Sun article, so I'll ensure that both are used as refs there to be sure. Will look into the other one later
Will do later.
Will do later
Will do later
Will do later
Done Reworded, added some refs.
Will do later
Done Reworded, fixed the refs.

I might need to hand it over to someone from WP:BOXING or similar for some of the more technical boxing questions. I've actually been to one Danny Green bout, but am by no means an expert on where to look for technique or "legacy" type of questions. The-Pope (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

It has been 19 days, and nothing has been done in that time except for a disambiguation. Under the circumstances, I think it's probably time to close this nomination; the article can be renominated when someone has addressed all of the concerns listed above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]