Template:Did you know nominations/Christy Martin vs. Deirdre Gogarty

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Christy Martin vs. Deirdre Gogarty

Created by AntonioMartin (talk). Self-nominated at 10:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

  • @AntonioMartin:: The article isn't quite long enough yet. The DYK check tool shows only 1131 characters of prose, and it needs a minimum of 1500 to qualify for DYK. Would you be able to expand it accordingly? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cierquiparle! Now that I have a night off (sort of as Im writing new articles every two nights, check the one I did yesterday and tell me how you like it, Ivette Rodriguez) I can write a pre-fight and post-fight section,,,considering that after the contest Martin was featured on Sports Illustrated's cover and both have been inducted in halls of fame, I have a lot of material I can put! Thanks and God bless! Antonio the pea on the wall Martin (the talk page) 02:10, 2 August, 2022 (UTC)
  • The article contains a lot of text about each contestant, but not about the fight yet. I see that you are still reworking and mayb you are one it already - anyway, this is to be dealt with. --KnightMove (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Now that's what I call a distringuished expansion! --KnightMove (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I will resume a full DYK review now that the article has been expanded. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @AntonioMartin: This looks like it's shaping up to be a fairly important article. (Great choice of topic!) However, there is quite a bit more work required before it's ready to be featured in the DYK section of the main page. There are entire sections written now that appear to border on original research (e.g., your interpretation of BoxRec stats). In addition, the extensive use of bare URLs as references is problematic (per WP:BAREURLS). I've suggested one way to quickly format the BoxRec pages using the first example; for other suggestions, see WP:Inline citations, and/or consider using Visual Editor as it's super fast to generate and re-use citations, without having to manually re-enter them every time.
Would you be able to go through the article once more to try to fix these issues? At minimum, each paragraph should have an inline citation. It's especially important to make sure that you're citing sources with care, and that they actually make the points you are making. I noticed that sometimes you were adding details that you either knew from somewhere else or were drawing your own conclusions (e.g. saying "around this time" repeatedly) to try to fill in the narrative with your own words. When in doubt, say less; by saying less you will find that what you do say has more impact. You have more than enough text now, so don't be afraid to make cuts. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cielquiparle..thanks for your kind words regarding my updates on the article. TBH, the last few days I have been working hard at the Wiki, with this article as well as creating Salixto Medina and Daniel Guerrero. I am looking forward to 2-3 days of rest but I will read the pages you suggested. I have always been a writer workhorse, never really cared too much in 19 years about policies, but in this case I see the necessity to read those! Thanks and God bless! Antonio the Handsomest Martin (the talk page) 12:14, 4 August, 2022 (UTC)
AntonioMartin, it's been over three weeks, and the article still has a large number of bare URLs, and has been tagged for this issue; if there are any bare URLs at all, it cannot run at DYK. I hope you'll be able to address these—plus the other concerns raised by Cielquiparle—within the next seven days; if not, this nomination is likely to be closed as unsuccessful. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
It's an interesting article, so I have cleaned up the bare URLs, and worked on adding and correcting citations. But I don't know where the details of the fight come from; I don't see a source for that. @AntonioMartin:, can you help with that? - PMCH2 (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:BlueMoonset and User:PMCH2! I need to apologize for not answering earlier. I had been busy these last few days taking care of a new article (Aviation in Puerto Rico) and of personal matters. To answer you both, I tried addressing the bare URL's but the website I used said that no changes were needed. Then, as far as the fight details, I just used the fight's youtube video. Now, I know Im not the ultimate authority but, in cases like these, where you can see actions taking place on video, I think that You Tube is as good and reliable a source as any others. Thanks to both of you for your understanding and forgiveness, and God bless you both! Antonio The Poncho Martin (aha?) 15:50, 31 August, 2022 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, have your issues been addressed, or is there more for the nominator to do? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Special thanks to PMCH2 for cleaning up so many bare URLs! Per AntonioMartin's comment, I will now watch the YouTube video to see if there is a straightforward way to format the remaining sections lacking inline citations, or if there is further work to be done. This may take some time (and if I do end up making extensive edits, I will come back and resign as the reviewer). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Could I please come back and hand the review over to you in 48 hours? I started trying to fix some of the problems, then found more, so now I'm a co-author. I just need a bit more time, as I got a bit sidetracked. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I'm qualified to review this article myself so if you want you can request a second opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for chasing up regardless. I will post here with a red "return arrow" when I am ready to pass on to the next reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Is this ready for a second look? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Now ready for a fresh review by a new reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Within the article the quote appears as "bout that put women's boxing on the map", but in the hook it is "the war that put women's boxing on the map". From the source it looks as if the hook is correct, in which case can the article be updated?
QPQ: None required.

Overall: It's not a blocker, but if a source is used to cite successive sentences within a paragraph then the citation only needs added to the last sentence in that sequence. Otherwise, an interesting hook with only some, hopefully minor, improvements needed. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh and careful reading, CSJJ104! I have fixed the sourcing of the first clause in the sentence you flagged. I would also like to propose changing the hook as follows:
It's consistent now with what it says in the article, it really is a key phrase that is used by many sources, plus by avoiding the "war" part of the quote, we no longer need to cite a boxing news site that is essentially a blog. And quite honestly from a military terminology point of view, the previous wording seems like a bad analogy (a single fight does not equal a "war"...a "battle", maybe). Anyway please have a look and let us know if it looks OK now. Thanks again! Cielquiparle (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Problems sorted, thanks for the quick work. Approving ALT1. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle and CSJJ104: I'm afraid I can't promote; the quote isn't attributed inline in the article. Could that be rectified? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: OK it was in the lead paragraph but I've now repeated it lower down in the article as well, and made sure both instances have citations. Hope this is what you meant and that it is fixed now. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, Cielquiparle – was it simply a general quote? Who coined it? I think there needs to be inline attribution. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 17:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh. I'm not sure it's possible to pinpoint the originator, as it's become such a common catchphrase used widely to refer to Christy Martin vs. Deirdre Gogarty (the fight), or to the individual fighters themselves (with Martin being the clear winner there). For that reason, I thought it was actually a better quote to use...but maybe we should revert to a different quote after all that can be attributed to a specific person. I'll have a look again at Sports Illustrated or A History of Women's Boxing, etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Ah, I see. In that case, I think we're good. I was just wondering if there was more we could say in the article. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I have some ideas for ALT hooks coming out of your comments...so please hold on...will definitely post tomorrow and let's see if it actually works better. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
For additional consideration (we could keep going, this article is full of colorful quotes and we can come up with more):
@Theleekycauldron: What do you think? Cielquiparle (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)