Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/CMLL World Lightweight Championship/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2017 [1].

CMLL World Lightweight Championship edit

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship known under various names over the years.I brought this to GA level last year and put more work into it, making updates based on successful FA Nominations of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship, CMLL World Middleweight Championship and CMLL World Heavyweight Championship articles. This is also currently part of a Featured Topic candidate at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships/archive1. I hope you will find this a high quality article and know that I am always open to suggestions and modifications to make this an even better article. Thank you in advance for your participation.  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose

  • MPJ-DK, I recommend finding a co-nominator. I'm glad you're bringing Lucha Libre articles to FAC, I'm glad you've had a lot of success with that, but there are too many big, obvious problems here. We don't want to burn out reviewers, forcing them to do work that you could have done and should have done before FAC. A few examples:
  • "During Máscara Dorada reign with the title": In normal speech, informal writing, and formal writing, no one says "Dorada reign". (Everyone makes typos of course, but you have to check for typos before you nominate at FAC, it's not our job to fix those.)
  • "the name was changed to be": No one says "the light was changed to be green" or "he changed the name of his hair style to be a mohawk".
  • "native Japanese wrestlers On February 27, 1999, they held a one night tournament": ?
  • "making the first time in the history of CMLL": Did you mean "making it the first time in the history of CMLL"?
  • "Mexican Ricky Marvin ... exchanged the title": Leaving the "the" off is just wrong. After the "the" is added, then people can argue over the best ways to present nationalities.
  • "Jr..": No..
  • Like I say ... I'd like to see more of these articles. The first or second time someone comes to FAC, if they're having a hard time, I hold off on criticizing. You've been here often enough that I don't think I'm out of line asking you to either do the work yourself before FAC, or if you don't want to or are having problems, find a co-nominator who is interested in Lucha Libre and is willing to get these articles up to FAC standards before FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: If anyone thinks I'm being too hard-nosed here, I'm always open to input. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank from my perspective you are fine, pointing out legitimate issues and a firm, but not unfair kick in my complacency ;-) and looking at the article again I see it and the need to tighten up a few things in my approach to FA. I would like to put a couple of hours of work into this and tue ask for your honest opinion on where it is at Quality wise. So no worries about harshness, I did not in any way take offense to your comments. Side note, I also appreciate the input on burning out reviewers - I wonder if that is part of the reasons my FACs don't always attract reviewers? I do appreciate the honesty, otherwise I would not be pushed to improve, which is the whole reason for me doung the FAC thing.  MPJ-DK  18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good. The part I review at FAC is prose ... and not even the tough prose problems, I just handle the straightforward stuff. So I can't really tell you how close you are to the finish line. Several people have given you extensive reviews for past FACs. Ask them ... and if they don't see much work to do, then fine. If they do see work to do, ask them if they'd like to co-nominate Lucha Libre articles at FAC so they can get some recognition for all the time they're putting in. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I have taken a much needed pass at the article again, there were several embarrassing issues in it that really should not have been present in a FAC. Dank I would like your honest opinion on the level now, not necessarily a detailed feedback more of your take on if it's even worth pursuing FAC for this article right now.  MPJ-DK  00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I finished this up, and I can support it on prose now. I might or might not oppose future articles, depending on how much work there is to do when they hit FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that Dank and thank you even more for your edits to the article - it has really helped bring up the quality of the writing. I've already decided that I need to either co-nominate or at least have a second/third set of eyes on the article prior to even nominating for FAC, I want to deliver a higher level of quality right off the bat and I have some work to do on my own.  MPJ-DK  02:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing ... a previous reviewer recommended mentioning and linking kayfabe. I agree in principle, although that article is a mess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That article is such a fancrufty mess I almost hate sending any reader in that direction.  MPJ-DK  21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why is over-all hyphenated under the infobox image?
... series of very well-received matches... - is the "very" necessary here?
(Havana Brother I, Havana Brother II and Havana Brother I) - should that be I, II and III?
In the subsequent year the championship was not defended, nor referred to by CMLL. - either "following year" or "subsequent years"
The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); --> "The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is for competitors' between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); " (also needed in the sentence following)

Otherwise...reads alright,a fun little read :) I don't see any glaring omissions, though I am not familiar with the subject matter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Casliber thank you for your input, I truely appreciate it. I have addressed all your comments.  MPJ-DK  12:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MPJ-DK there is one query still left above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
casliber - That is a great catch, I read it three times before I saw the issue. Fixed it.  MPJ-DK  01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok....ok then all good. Can't see any glaring prose issues outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:Máscara-Dorada.jpg: Free image on Commons. Uploader had some uploads removed for copyvio and while the EXIF is clean unlike the previous ones, the image appears at higher resolution on the web, but I am not sure if it's simply scaled up.
  • File:Ricky Marvin.jpg: Free Flickr image, good EXIF. Pertinent to the section.
  • File:Rocky Romero.jpg: Free Flickr image with only basilar EXIF. Pertinent to the section.

Basic but OK Alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

  • Background: "the title change was only made public when they promoted a rematch between Williams and Romero." Who is "they"? I can't tell whether it's CMLL or some previously unnamed independent circuit.
  • Clarified that it was the local promotion, it was so obsure I could not even find an official name for it.
  • In one of the notes for Vacated in the table, shouldn't "moves up to the middleweight division" be "moved up to the middleweight division"?
  • FIxed
  • List of combined reigns: You use the color for Ricky Marvin, but not Virus, when both wrestlers had reigns of uncertain duration. Consider adding the color for Virus as well.
  • Good catch, I added the color
  • The all-caps "JAPAN" in ref 2 needs fixing.
  • Fixed
  • Are page numbers possible for refs 2 and 8? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Ref 2 is one page, ref 8 is the range that covers all CMLL/EMLL championships.

Coordinator comment: I think, unless I've missed it, we still need a source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sarastro1 - Unfortunately no you have not missed it, I posted the request in early April at the top of the WT:FAC page. Perhaps it is the Spanish language sources that are discouraging people. Note to potential reviewer - I have tried to apply all comments made by Laser Brain when he did the source review for my previous FAC so hopefully that will mean les issues this time round?  MPJ-DK  23:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review (part) edit

I can't vouch for the validity of the Spanish and Japanese sources, although on the face of it they seem to be from established and reputable publications (with one exception).

The chief problem is that many, indeed most, of the online links are broken and return "page not found" or similar message. Please check the links in refs 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18.

Also, can you please clarify what source ref 16 is citing from?

I don't think there is a problem with formatting, which is consistent and correct. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am confused, some of those citations you mention do not have links at all? and the ones that do have links work for me
  • With 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 I get "page not found" on the ISSN links to the WorldCat site. I've re-tested this morning with the same result – what are you getting from these links? For 17 asnd 18 the main links to the source are OK, but again I find a "page not found" problem with the archive links. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not look at the ISBN, I see it now. I'll have to dig out my old magazines to see if I typed it in wrong or what happened. If I could only remember where I paked them. I'll work it and see about 17/18 archives too.  MPJ-DK  11:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 shows me the PDF in an archived form and 18 shows me the Dragon Lee profile in an archived form?  MPJ-DK  11:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brianboulton I checked the ISSN on the magazines and it is correct, I even found a PDF version of a magazine to show it, front page, above the barcode, I zoomed it to verify that it is indeed the same ISSN - SuperLuchas 475, I am not sure what to do since the worldcat website is not finding the magazine.  MPJ-DK  21:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just remove the ISSN links that aren't working. They only help to verify the source's particulars, not its content. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 is a picture of the current champion wearing the belt - to cite the fact that CMLL never bothered to update the name it is still "Campeon Superligero Japan", despite it being renamed twice. It is the first picture I've seen where the nameplate can actually be read.  MPJ-DK  23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was published by Dragon Lee, the current champion on his official twitter account.  MPJ-DK  11:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does an individual's twitter account qualify as a reliable source by FA standards? I don't know the answer to that, and will let someone else judge. Subject to that, and the removal of the deadlinks, I'm prepared to accept the sources as they stand bearing in mind my initial reservation that I haven't checked the content of the foreign language sources. I understand that another reviewer is doing that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Siuenti edit

A bit of an unusual request from a reviewer, but if a silver platter is what's needed to get the source review done so be it. Note - I am marking them with the source number and if repeated the letter it uses in the citation. Note 2: I am using Google translator, I am not fixing the quotes for grammatical correctness or anything else. Web based citations only. These mainly cover uncontentious facts so they should be easy enough to check - veifying that "Guy X" won the championship on "day Y" etc.

  • 1A/B/C/D/E/F - Friday 4 March 2016 - Semi Final match - Taking their rivalry to unsuspected levels and surprising those who have followed their meteoric career in the CMLL, KAMAITACHI and DRAGON LEE were involved in a duel for the World Lightweight Championship that until tonight was in the waist of the Japanese rudo. The actions were developed in the field of technique and with their reckless executions, both gladiators managed to enter a public 100%, but this brilliant exhibition came to an end when the native of Tala, Jalisco applied a powerful superplex to KAMAITACHI to Recover the scepter and put an end to an ephemeral reign of the native of the Far East.
  • 6A/B/C/D/E- Virus new CMLL Lightweight Champion - report of June 7, 2011 show
  • 7A/B/C/D- SEMIFINAL FIGHT - FOR THE WORLD CMLL LIGHT WEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP - The immeasurable passion with which DRAGON LEE has arrived at each of his duels since he had the greatest triumph of his career in Tribute to Two Legends continues to bear fruit, because this afternoon, he arrived as a challenger to the World Lightweight Championship of the CMLL And retired as the new Champion leaving his face to the lamps to VIRUS, shattering him placidly in the third fall with a spectacular Spear from the corner.
  • 16 (No text just a picture of the belt)
  • 17- Lightweight - 61.235 kilos, Super Lightweight - 63.503 kilos
  • 18- 76 Kilos
  • 19A/B/C/D/E- NJPW PRESENTS CMLL FANTASTICA MANIA 2016 2016/01/24 - In the sixth game, Takahashi Hiroyuki Kamaitachi challenged Dragon Lee's CMLL World Light throne which is struggling with CMLL. This game was very speedy and it was a reward for advanced technique, and lastly crabs Lee by Kamaitachi with Canadian Destroyer. It was crowned with a beloved belt.
  • Siuenti - There you go the facts for your review.  MPJ-DK  14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um it doesn't look like any specialist knowledge is required to check those things but I'll take a look I guess. What about the non-web-based sources, are they chopped liver or something? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are absolutely correct, it does not require specialist knowledge and that was never the request, it needs a review by someone not involved in the article (i.e. I cannot do it myself) so it needs someone like yourself to check if the cited sources matches the claims made in the article so it is not just the claim of an involved editor.  MPJ-DK  20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for printed material, as I pointed out on the talk page, printed sources fall under Assume Good Faith, which is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. So while it is not "chopped liver" they are taken on Good Faith to actually cover what they are used for. That is also a standard practice for Feature Article Candidate review, which I am sure the regular FAC reviewers can attest to.  MPJ-DK  20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if someone wanted to insert false information into featured articles, it would be a piece of cake. Similarly if someone was merely incompetent at translating Japanese into English, there would be no defence against errors. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Moved off-topic discussion to talk page. There has been a little too much off-topic back and forth here, and we are better focussing on the article and issues at hand. A spot-check is not essential here, although there is nothing to stop a reviewer performing one. Print sources ARE explicitly allowed, and if a reviewer wishes to check them, they are free to do so by locating them on their own, or if the nominator is willing to send a scan/picture of the print source by email, checking what the nominator can provide. This latter course has been followed on many FACs over the years to verify print materials. But I would recommend that the interested parties check out Ealdgyth's comments on WT:FAC. No-one knows more about source reviewing than she does. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Sarastro1 for the focus and clarity, I agree we got off track and I apologize for that.  MPJ-DK  22:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that these links will satisfy that the printed sources do not support anything that I made up.  MPJ-DK  22:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm you have these Japanese and Spanish sources at home but no scanner? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 01:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the Japanese source is online, but yes I spend my money buying Mexican Lucha mags on eBay instead of buying a scanner I have no use for, and? But can we please stick to the topic? I have provided you with three totally independent sources that will back up 90% or more of the claims made in the print sources also make. The fact that all three sources agree and also agree with the print sources should hopefully go some way to prove that I am working in good faith here, instead of asking you to assume that I am working in good faith.  MPJ-DK  01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes please do remember "Good Faith", that would be nice. Side note - I work extensively in Lucha Libre, I have slews of GAs and some FA/FLCs all about Lucha Libre with a ton of Spanish sources, could we perhaps Assume Good Faith in the fact that I've translated a Spanish text or seventy in my time?  MPJ-DK  11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And back to the topic at hand, of the multitude of online sources provided for you to review have you found any that disagree with the content of this article?  MPJ-DK  11:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - if there is any doubts about the Spanish, I speak it fluently - just let me know which ref you'd like me to spot-check (not all of them, please). BTW, ref 19 is currently throwing up an error:"Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Kamaitachi1" defined multiple times with different content." All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Simon, I made an update yesterday but forgot to check my work, glad you caught it.  MPJ-DK  12:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off-topic to talk Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interestingly, the article says "The exact date Ricky Marvin lost the championship has not been verified, which means the title reign lasted between 1 day and 113 days." but at the same time it appears "Being professional wrestling it could also be that CMLL decided to announce a title change but no match ever happened. " Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not mutually exclusive, one is about the length of the reign, the other about how it began. But I agree it is rather interesting.  MPJ-DK  01:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm so Súper Luchas is published by Impresos Camsam or maybe Camsan. What hits do you get when you google Impresos Camsam? Also try with -Wikipedia. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice that at least of things have come out of the box at last. As I understand it ""In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero." is supported by " Luchador del sur de California Tommy Williams fue anunciado como el campeón en octubre, así que él debe haber derrotado Rocky Romero el 15 de septiembre". I would translate the Spanish as "South California Tommy Williams was announced as champion in October, so he must have defeated Rocky Romero on the 15th of September". Seems to be a little bit of WP:SYNTH going on here. Perhaps quoting the Spanish along with the translation for each statement will clarify what's happening. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHICHBIT of http://www.njpw.co.jp/result?e=1078 are we supposed to be looking at? There seems to be like 10 pages. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tisquesusa edit

The issue of the offline sources aside, but I find this very short for a FA, and see that even the middle weight championship has FA status, with just 19 refs (and including a typo). That is a much bigger issue than the sources, if this is the "best of the best" to be extracted from so "many" (21 is not much at all, certainly not for a FA) sources, it's quite poor and that other FA just pushed far too easily. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • refs in the last table are not ordered
  • intro is marginal
  • how come those dates or locations are not known, these fights are not secret, are they?
  • So the number of sources is what determins what a Featured Article is? sheer numbers? News to me.  MPJ-DK  23:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
21 references for a championship that spans 18 years, don't you find that a bit on the low side yourself? It's not only the number, it's the amount of available information versus what the article is about. A FA should contain every possible reference to be found. But I have seen many of these wrestling articles passed easily to ridiculous GA, FA and FL statuses, so I am convinced you'll find some friend who pushes this through too. My standards clearly are way beyond what's considered "Featured" in this subset of articles and lists. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 13 and 14 are just the same, so listed twice which puts the total to 20
  • date format of the refs is inconsistent
  • Volume is no indicator of quality. And please can we have some civility? I am going to walk way from such an overt display of hostility against me to let it speak for itself.  MPJ-DK  23:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volume in a FA definitely is a measure of quality. An FA is allegedly "the best of the best" in quality class on Wikipedia. That means that every FA should have the vast majority, if not all, of the available reliable sources listed and used. Not just for 1 or 2 words, but more explanation. I've added two tags now of things that are not at all explained in detail. You can try to use emotional blackmailing, but this is not a personal thing, it's about objectively measurable qualities and in that sense this article is far far away from an FA. The "standards" of the other wrestling FA articles is a false reference, because those are already too short too. Every reviewer has the right to formulate an opinion and if you're not happy with that, bad luck. Check my work done to see what standards I use, this article is way below that. All the best, Tisquesusa (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to opinions, I deal with those every day - I object to attitude and accusing me of having "friends push it to GA or FA" sure sounds personal. And I repeat quantity is not quality.  MPJ-DK  23:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different people, different reviewers, different standards. Those other articles would not pass my criteria for FA and I am sure of many other reviewers also not. The people reviewing the wrestling articles may have different standards, so it gets approved to FA, that clearly happened. You can keep repeating your point and I can keep repeating that an FA should be so complete that no other source than this Wikipedia article should be needed in order to get a complete overview of what the topic is. Imho this article doesn't do that and volume of information imho is a criterion of quality. But as said, I am sure you'll find enough others who approve it right away, no matter the ref problems. The middle weight article has a typo in one of the refs (maybe more) and was approved to FA too, so I guess the reviewers didn't take a close look at it at all. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is missing from the article? Yes I could put 3 sources for each claim, but that's excessive - now if there is information out there that's not in the article that's a totally different matter but I am not aware of anything other than perhaps a few trivial factoids at most. Having 40 sources does not ensure "complete overview", that is just a number - the focus should be content IMO. Are there sources missing? Sure especially since lucha libre often gets reported on in mainstream Mexican news and sports coverage, so I could probably stack the sources like cordwood 10 high if I wanted to but that doesn't make the content any better.  MPJ-DK  23:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I gotta ask since I've been staring myself blind looking at the references, where is the date format difference in the sources for this article? I don't see it.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the missing date and location for one title change - cannot put in what is not found in sources, none of the sources I've read has a specific date or location for the championship. This supposedly took place in Japan and the Mexican sources basically just reportd "Virus won the championship" and I have not found a good Japanese language source from around the year 2000 that nails down a specific date. I cannot put something in the article that the sources do not cover, so I put in all the known information. Being professional wrestling it could also be that CMLL decided to announce a title change but no match ever happened. That has happened before, but I have never seen a source to support that claim - cannot make an unsourced claim in a GA of FA. So I'm stuck with adding in what we know without speculations.  MPJ-DK  00:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine for those points. To me it's strange, but I am not into it, the Japan argument makes sense. Knowing Mexico a bit, I know this lucha libre is very popular (almost went to a fight myself but other plans that day). What I don't agree with is "excessive". A FA is the highest rank possible on Wikipedia. There is nothing better here. So the article should reflect that status, be the "champion" let's say. Now, it's ironical that these articles are about show wrestling; entertainment. This is not a sport. Sport is a competition where the best, strongest, fastest, most scoring, etc. wins. This lucha libre is not like that, as is mentioned with a few words only; "the fight is not legitimate [imho the wrong word; legis, lawful is not the right wording], because it is predetermined based on promoters". And that's it. No more information. HOW do promoters influence the result of these "matches" entertainment events? How many shouts does Lucho the Luchador have to make, how many tattoos, does the mask he wears have influence, are the promoters of influence, nothing is explained. And that's why this article fails for FA according to my standards. The sloppy referencing, with errors, I mean, I wouldn't even START to bring it on for review if it is so sloppy to start with. I expect 98% quality for an FA, others maybe are satisfied with 90%. But that's the range an FA is in; A+, 90/100+, "top notch", "the best we can produce". Not "well yes, including more refs would be 'excessive', it is actually 'good enough'". "Good enough" is not FA and not even GA. If you write about "Lucho the Luchador" who 'won' the championship, then write about his background, who is he, etc. Not just assume that people click through, because an FA stands by itself, introduces the concepts and may refer to further articles that go deeper, but the task of an FA is to give the reader the feeling "now I've read everything I wanted to know about this subject". That is not the case here, or that FL with 10 refs that I commented on. That this FAC is not up to my standards, soit, but it's not even up to Wikipedia standards. You keep going on in defensive mode, and refuse to address the issues or see the points I am making. Others will pass this, like I said it happened with your other wrestling articles, but it's not me who is personal here. I stick to the quality guidelines, especially about referencing, completeness, a "satisfied feeling" after reading the article, etc. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16 is the odd one out.
What is a "torneo cibernetico"? I don't need to click through to that page (with issues!), I need to be informed what it is in this article. And so on. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let me start out by thanking you for getting down to a content discussion. Side note - hard to not be defensive when I have "so I am convinced you'll find some friend who pushes this through too" - that is directly aimed at me and assumes bad faith that I am gaming the system somehow. So please don't act like it's weird that I get defensive (and also look up how many of my FLC of FACs have failed for lack of participation, then come back and tell me I have friends pushing these through easily).
  • I will discuss and adjust content day in and day out, I am more than willing to improve quality every day in every way. However an arbitrary number of sources is not a discussion I can see a point it. So let me ask you, what is that "magic number"? since it's not 20 what is it?
  • FA is not a directory of external articles, I will never agree that there is a magic number or a requirement to include "all sources" published on the matter when they basically state the same thing, if there are sources that have new or different information by all means I am up for adding it - I am trying to figure out what sort of information you're looking for.
  • are not won legitimately; their holders are determined by promoters or promotions, not by athletic competition - quoted for fullness. it states clearly that the matches are not competitive in nature. What more do you need to know? does the 2017 World Snooker Championship article spend time on what the snooker rules are?
  • How do they "influence" who wins? You mean other than telling the guy "you're winning"? Due to the carney nature of wrestling the actual thoughts behind a championship change is not made public, it's only known to an official or a group of officials - but in all cases it boils down to "can we make money"? it's a business, that's what goes into it - there are no sources that can state exactly WHY someone is made champion, they can speculate on it, guess and so on - but guessing and speculation is not encyclopedic content and there is certainly no reliable sources to support such content.
  • The article needs to have focus - it is about the championship, providing a bio of each champion is excessive and will bloat the article and make it unfocused. So I am not "writing about Lucho the Luchador" I am writing about the championship.
  • Thank you for the date, it was driving me nuts - I had fixed the other two dates in the citation already but missed that one.
  • All you really need to know about a torneo cibernetico for the purposes of this article is that it's an elimination match, yeah I can give you the rules of one - but that's really going off topic.
  • I'm still not seeing the article missing something that's actually factual/verifiable and about the championship?? Call it defensive if you want, but I cannot put something in that has no sources.  MPJ-DK  01:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people might argue that
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:
Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary.

Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More review
  1. another example of sloppiness (MPJ-DK, do you read your own articles before nominating them for FAC, or even GA, that it passed, flabbergasted about that?): the intro talks about "Masatu Yakushiji", the background chapter about "Masato Yakushiji", what is it? MasatU or MasatO?
    1. No I am not "flabbergasted" that it passed, but then again I am also not as easily driven to insult someone either mileage clearly varies. And yep, fixed the typo.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. there is hardly any introduction in this "background", so the reader -of which I am just a representative, that's what review is- is completely left in the dark how and why a MEXICAN show wrestling organisation ended up on the other side of the Earth/Pacific in Japan? Why Japan? Why not Thailand, Indonesia, Argentina, Ukraine, Mali, whatever, how come these Japanese guys were invited to this CMLL, that was exclusively Mexican?
    1. You want me to explain WHY CMLL decided to tour Japan? How is that relevant to the championship? I'm fine with giving a bit more context of what CMLL Japan was, but for the sake of this championship it does not matter why they are not in Uganda or Svalbard. Does the article on a SuperBowl explain why the 49'ers are from San Francisco?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Masato/Masatu is not linked, probably because he has no article. Two options; add a red link (to show Wikipedia is not complete; red links are no shame, avoiding red links is a shame) or add information about this guy; who is he, how did the CMLL end up just with him, what's his background in (other) fighting/martial arts (?) disciplines, etc. etc. I don't need to read his "once upon a time life story of 15 pages", but just a couple of phrases about him and his background, ideally with new, not earlier used sources
    1. Nope, he is not notable enough for a red link even, perfectly within the guidelines, I am very well versed in WP:RED as well as WP:N.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned in it. Just like an article on a sporting event does not give a little background on each player mentioned or a movie article would inform us of what movies an actor has been in prior to filming the specific film. Could you please provide examples of current FAs that actually do what you're asking for? Perhaps point out where Spanish conquest of the Muisca explains what "pre-columbian", "Altiplano Cundiboyacense" and " preceramic" are? I would love to see an example of this, sounds nifty.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The next year", I'd say "next year", but it's a minor thing
    1. I don't like leaving out the definitive article, I went with "The following year"  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. you start already talking about "weight classes" but I've got no idea what is "lightweight", "super lightweight", middle weight etc. It's not introduced and assumes the reader knows this. An FA is directed at everyone, not just fans of this genre of entertainment. Classes NEED introduction with definitions before talking about them.
  6. Moving sections around will help, after I move it I'll check to make sure it makes sense.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. describe this "Virus" fighter, as he was the second champion. Who was he, what was his experience, etc.
    1. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. again for Ricky Marvin, the Havana Brothers, etc. No pages of text, but also not nothing as is now the case. Who are these people? Again, an FA should stand by itself, not needed to click various links to actually get what it's about
    1. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. why do you keep talking about a "tournament" (as if it was a sports competition), while in the intro you rightly (but very shortly) mentioned that this is all just show, no real competition?
    1. Presented as a tournament to the fans so they held a pro wrestling tournament, we don't need to hit the readers over the head with "you know this is all fake" every single time, that's terrible writing. I do agree that the "rules" section should be moved up, get that established and out of the way so it's clear to the readers, I will work on that.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "A few months later ..." -> "A few months later, ..."
    1. Fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "In subsequent years ..." -> "In subsequent years, ..."
    1. Fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "In 2003 CMLL reinstated" -> "In 2003, CMLL reinstated"
    1. Fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. huh? Havana Brother 1 "loses" (you cannot really lose if it's not a real match, but ok) and suddenly all Havana Brothers, 1 to 35 quit?? Why? Please explain; again the article should be self-explanatory. Back just 1 year later, is that really "quitting" then?
    1. Stating a fact, Virus became champion and Havana Brother I stopped working for CMLL for a year or so - no source on if he quit, was fired, injured, detained at the border or took paternity leave. I never used the word "quit", you put that intention in and you spoke for the other Havana Brothers, I never mentioned those as it's not relevant to the topic at hand.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. no wonder your article(s) are so short, they read as if it's written only for fans/people who know these fighters. "Romero became a two-time champion on December 10, 2004, but stopped working for CMLL shortly after the match.[5] CMLL made no attempts to get the championship back from Romero at that time. Romero would on occasion defend the super lightweight championship on the Southern California independent circuit." -> "but" should be rewritten. He became a two-time champion? He became champion for the second time at that date, right? or two times in one day? "Romero won his second title on Dec 10, 2004, and decided to quit the CMLL shortly after the match" or something similar. What does "no attempts to GET the championship back" mean? How do you get the championship back from someone? Does Romero need to defend his title, or how is this arranged? If Romero "defends" the championship in the super lightweight category, but is not part of the CMLL, but gained that championship with the CMLL, how can he defend his championship when he's not even part of the organisation anymore? Or can you just win the Formule One World Championship and next year go Nascar racing and DEFEND the F1 championship? You see what I mean?
    1. A belt represents the championship, like pro boxing. Romero kept the belt, was introduced as champion when he worked for other companies and had the belt with him. I found no indications that they even tried to get the belt back, they basically pretended that it did not exist, I will provide some clarification.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero. -> Why? Why was this -and this "match" only- not shown? More explanation, less assumptions that the reader knows about all of these things
    1. Small time wrestling show, no video coverage of the show, no press coverage of that show found, only documentation showed that next time they fought Williams was billed as champion.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Romero regained the title from Tommy Williams but never defended it afterward., but he "re"gained this title in the independent California circuit or for CMLL? See the F1/Nascar example on the lack of logic in these statements.
    1. Applying real sports logic to professional wrestling will drive you crazy, the Surgeon General recommends that you do not try.
  17. "When Romero returned to CMLL in 2008, it was as an enmascarado (masked character) called "Grey Shadow", with no public acknowledgment of his history with CMLL." ok, I get what this means, he came back as a kind of pseudonym. What were the differences between Romero and "Grey Shadow"? Was "Grey Shadow" his real stage name, or was it "Sombra Gris", but you translated it?
    1. I never translate the ring names, if it's Spanish I may thrown in a ("Golden Mask") or something, but if a Spanish language company uses the English name I don't translate it.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "The CMLL World Super Lightweight Championship was not officially declared vacant until Romero left CMLL to work for their rival AAA. " What is "vacant", who is "AAA", again I need to be able to understand all of that from this -intended- FA article alone.
    1. So "their rival", would be "CMLL's rival" - in the way that Coke and Pepsi are rivals, that is who AAA is, in an article about the championship you don't need a history lesson on CMLL/AAA just that Romero left one to join the other. And yes that was their actual name at the time, just "AAA". I will work in "Vacant" in the rules section.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. "CMLL held a tournament to crown a new champion,[13] and on April 7, 2009, Máscara Dorada won a torneo cibernetico elimination match for the super lightweight championship." -> a tournament that is not a tournament. A champion that is not a champion (because no competition). Who the hell is "Máscara Dorada"? Yeah, Golden Mask, but who is this? How come he is introduced here, or rather, thrown in the ring without any introduction?
    1. Yes, yes I get it - you would like me to get out a 2 by 4 and hit it home in every single sentence that wrestling is predetermined, moving the section up front will help address this. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. "During Máscara Dorada's reign, the weight class was adjusted from the "Super Lightweight" to simply the "Lightweight" division, expanding the official weight limit of the championship." -> what does that mean? How was this adjustment? What was super lightweight (until x kg) and what was leightweight (until y kg)?
    1. So considering I put in the official definition of both I'm not sure what you're looking for?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "In 2011 Dorada vacated the championship when he announced that he was moving up to the middleweight division instead.", comma after 2011. But whut? How can one "move" to a different class? Did "Máscara Dorada" (not "Dorada", it's not his last name, it's a combined stage name) suddenly gain weight or what? Again MORE explanation please
    1. How does a lightweight go up to a higher weight class? Gee I don't know, burgers? building more muscle mass? perhaps he started to carry his wallet to the ring - I think there are limits to how much we can insult people's intelligence.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. "Virus became a four-time champion on June 7, 2011, after defeating Guerrero Maya Jr. in the finals of a tournament, making him the only wrestler to have held all three versions of the championship." Huh what? last time I read about Virus was in 2003, we are 8 years further. And what was his third title then? Who is Guerrero Maya Jr., now suddenly thrown in the ring? What "three versions of 'the' championship"?
    1. Virus was not in the picture for 8 years, an article about the championship is no place to track what he was doing in between  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    3. CMLL Japan Super Lightweight, CMLL World Super Lightweight and CMLL World Lightweight  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reigns
  1. Dragon Lee is the current champion in his second reign, having defeated Kamaitachi on March 4, 2016, to win the title. Who the hell is Dragon Lee? Where is the info about his first reign? Why do we jump from 2011 to 2016 without any info on what happened in between? Why in a new chapter? Who is Kamaitachi? Are there suddenly Japanese fighters again participating (I sense from the name)? But that was done years before, not? I am confused.
    1. Article is about the championship, not mini-bios of each wrestler mentioned.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2. It is a separate section because it's more about stats, current champion etc. not the overall history but the "right now" section. And I agree the prose in history needs to close the gap, which I will do
    3. CMLL employs wrestlers from all sorts of countries always have, and are not restricting who can hold a "world" title by their country of origin. Is this really that surprising? Do "World Championships" in legitimate sports exclude Japan?  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Eight different wrestlers have held the championship for fifteen reigns in total. Virus holds the record for most reigns, with four: two in Japan and two in Mexico. He held the title for a total of 2,046 days, more than any other champion, and his fourth reign lasted 1,398 days, the longest individual reign. " the longest individual reign of what, this weight class, all weight classes, how does this compare to other classes, is this extremely long or average among these "fighters" (it's all show, so no real fight and thus no real "reign")?
    1. I will add in some context compared to other CMLL championships, good idea.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Ricky Marvin had the shortest individual reign, lasting somewhere between 1 day and 32 days." -> rewrite. "Ricky Marvin's individual reign is not officially known as ... <- info from note in here, but would be minimum 1 day and maximum 32 days", "somewhere" is not encyclopedic language, except in "over the rainbow".
    1. Unless the article is called somewhere of course.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The belt that represents the championship has not been updated since the days of the CMLL Japan Super Lightweight Championship; the face plate still reads "Super Ligero" as well as "Japan"." - first time I read about a belt. Do the "winners" get a belt, or all wrestlers, or how does this belt thing work? Again introduction of things before you name them.
    1. Winner is awarded the belt (and there is only one belt, it's passed along like a trophy), reordering the section will help address this and I will clarify  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rules
  1. Yes, THIS needs to come first. But... "The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is for competitors between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); during Máscara Dorada's reign from 2009 to 2001 [???] the weight limit was changed to the Lightweight division,[13][14] which is between 63 kg (139 lb) and 70 kg (150 lb)." COMMAS after years and break up sentences. the weight limit doesn't change to the lightweight division. The weight limits get redefined and that redefinition creates a new division.
    1. The division existed for a long time before that (Mexican National Lightweight Championship) but the limits for this specific championship was changed during Dorada's reign. and it should be "2011" not "2001", which has been fixed  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "CMLL has at times ignored the weight limit, promoting champions such as Dragon Lee who was billed as weighing 76 kg (168 lb) when he won the championship." just like that. No explanation. Is that normal, that heavier fighters can participate? Why did the CMLL do this? Background, explanation, this is very confusing.
    1. They ignore it when they see fit, that's really the long and short of it, "Because CMLL felt like it" - as the article states the limits used to be more strictly enforced, but in the last 10 years or so CMLL has done this several times, "because they want Wrestler X to be champion" but you will not find a reliable source that states "CMLL is weird, CMLL does what CMLL wants"  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "All title matches promoted in Mexico take place under best two-out-of-three falls rules. On occasion, single-fall title matches have taken place, especially when promoting CMLL title matches in Japan, conforming to the traditions of the local promotion." second part contradicts first. If ALL title matches take place under rule 1, then 'on occasion' cannot be right. And the other way around; if "on occasion" (the "especially" indicates it is not ONLY in Japan) is right, then ALL cannot be right.
    1. Clearly states "promoted in mexico", which is not all matches, no contradiction there. One fall championship matches happens when they are defended in countries where one fall matches are the norm - and CMLL tours Japan more than any other so that's the natural example to bring up for exceptions to the rule.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "One championship changed in a one-fall match on January 24, 2016, when Kamaitachi defeated Dragon Lee during CMLL's 2016 Fantastica Mania tour." what are these matches; one fall, two-out-of-three fall, what is that? I know nothing of this entertainment and am confused. And yes, this very article needs to introduce those concepts to me, at least basically. If I want to know MORE, I can click through. Not "if I want to know ANYTHING, I NEED to click through"!
    1. Article is about the championship, 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game does not explain what a "quarterback" is or the intricacies of a field goal.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "With a total of twelve CMLL championships being labeled as "World" titles, the promotional focus shifts over time with no single championship being promoted as the main one." -> shifted. And this is Japanese to me, I don't get what you want to say here. Again because you cramp far too much information, assuming pre-knowledge by the reader into 1 phrase.
    1. I will provide more context  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "As with other professional wrestling championships, these are not won legitimately; their holders are determined by promoters or promotions, not by athletic competition." this is the LAST sentence of the article, but it needs to be the first (that whole rules section belongs under background). And it needs expansion. If you say "it is not known why one promoter wins over the other", as you did here on the talk page, THAT is info that belongs in the article. It's ok that it isn't known, but that it ISN'T known is information. THAT is what I wanted to read in the article, not having to ask here as part of the review.
    1. Reordering content and I will add a note that the general public are not informed of what goes into the decisions.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.... ehh and that's it? 2 tables, some refs and notes, and I've been "informed" of what this CMLL World Lightweight Championship is?? I have more questions than answers after this piece of reading. Do you re-read your own texts? Do you see what I mean? How can you propose such a text as an FAC in the first place? Why not do much more effort BEFORE nominating it here?

    1. So we've got "the rules governing the championship", "the background/history", "the current champion" and "overview of their reigns" and at the end the title history in list format - yes I'd say you have been informed of the championship. bits and pieces can be added here and there, but I'm not sure exactly what other general factual information you think is relevant to add (other than taking the article off track by explaining who everyone is, what pro wrestling is etc. which is not actually about the championship at all. So please do tell me what relevant championship information is missing? I could list every single championship match ever held but frankly that gets into trivia territory.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is barely what I class as "C" for the ones I've written and they even contain more refs. Sorry, but this needs a lot more work to be eligible. Tisquesusa (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again wearing the "number of references" as a badge of honor for no particular reason, it's not the size of your article but the coverage of the topic. It is an encylopedic aticle, not an directory of sources. But since some of your input has helped make it a stronger article I do appreciate the input, so thank you for that. I will work on items of reordering content and various clarifications over the next day or so. I've made some immediate fixes as well, but there are things you suggest that have no place in an article about a wrestling championship and standards you don't even follow yourself if your "proudest work", that ain't getting done by me.  MPJ-DK  11:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Can we please make sure that we sign after every comment and, where necessary, every line please. It is getting hard to keep track of who is saying what. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a further, slightly frustrated, comment: Would it be possible for us all to cool this down and de-personalise it? Sniping backwards and forwards isn't going to get anyone what they want. I'd like to clarify this. Any opposes (and comments) which are NOT specifically related to WP:WIAFA will be disregarded by the coordinators in closing. If Siuenti and Tisquesusa could state, briefly and clearly (and without discussing the nominator, other articles or anyone's perceived motivations) which of the FA criteria they feel that the article is currently failing on, with at least one example of where the article fails to meet that criteria, we might have a way forward. Otherwise, I am tempted to view many of these comments as unactionable and based largely on personal preference. Posting great walls of text (either in review or in response) is only going to slow this down and make everyone tired. I've removed quite a bit of argument to the talk page now (and am tempted to move some more, but will hold fire for now), and will continue to do so if it does not relate to the article, WIAFA and this review. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My objections are way different from those by Siuenti. He questions the good faith in our Danish contributor with the in-your-face signature. After a challenging series I don't, I think he is very reluctant to put unsourced information into his articles, which is a good sign. My criticism is about the lack of context, background and expansion in this very article. An FA should be "the best of the best", you as custodian of this section should agree with that. And in that sense the article fails. That is not personal and doesn't need a defensive attitude, it is purely looking at the state of the article, the confusions a reader unknown to lucha libre has, and the attitude of the author. It may be that in the past many articles were (easily) pushed to GA and/or FA status, but that is irrelevant to my detailed review. Those "walls of text" mean that I actually read the article. That's what's reviewing is about. I have reviewed MSc. theses, scientific publications, other wiki articles (both here and elsewhere; internal wikis of high standard) and assessed many works by employees of multinationals. On top of that, I maintain a high standard in my own work. As said, I request 98% "perfect", while others are satisfied with 90%. That's fine and up for reaching a compromise. Where I don't comprise on is the attitude by the nominator, in this case also the author. You can see from my history that when challenged on the content of my proposed FA, I listen and do not turn defensive to issues readers have with the text of the article. An FA needs to be: 1) crystal clear, fully describing the topic and not needed to click through to other articles and 2) heavily referenced with -ideally- online, but I don't see a problem with offline (in that you cannot group me with Sileunti) sources. Yes, it may be a lot more resistance than before to MPJ-DK, but that is not a bad thing; it means his articles get more scrutiny than before. That is all to improve the quality and standards to have your articles belong to "the cream of the crop" of Wikipedia's articles. My points are nowhere unjustified, personal or crazy.
And to answer the defensive attitude by the author; yes, I explain unknown terms to the reader in my articles. When I talk about the Altiplano Cundiboyacense, I explain what it is shortly in every article. No, I don't explain what a river is, but I do explain what the Bogotá River is. That is what I request from this article too; a short introduction/background on what is lucha libre, what are the general rules, who are those fighters and why do they go all the way to Japan from Mexico. If that is "too much to ask", then not only our reviews are pretty much senseless, the whole standard of "Featured Content on the Biggest of All Wikipedias, the showcase of The Best Of The Very Best (FA)" should be taken into question. Sue me. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Article is about the championship, 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game does not explain what a "quarterback" is or the intricacies of a field goal." wrong comparison. This article is about a certain class. In an article about Formula 3, it also needs to be described what makes Formula 3 different from Formula 2 or Formula 1. You should take a more bird-eye view. An FA is an article that stands by itself. It doesn't require clicking on the links within the article, those links are there to know more, not to know anything. Just 1 sentence is enough in most cases. Who are these fighters? How does Japan come into play into this -previously- Mexican """sports""". Those are very valid and not crazy at all questions by a reader who is not submerged into this niche of entertainment. If I'd review an article about Etayoa bacatensis, I don't need to know what a mammal is, but yes, I need to be informed what an ungulate means. Same here. I don't need to be taken by a child's hand to what a fight is, but I need to be informed what the specific rules are for this specific championship, you -as nominator- request a specific FA status for.
Do I explain that in my articles? Yes. And if people come with "I am confused, please explain more", then I listen and do the actual work. From your reluctant and defensive attitude here and the fact that many of your FL/FA/GAs were pushed "to the highest rank of Wikipedia" easily, I get you don't really care. You see a review as "awkward", "disturbing". Not at all as a motivation to make the best of it. Professionalism is to respond to clearly phrased, honest and clear arguments with "ok, I'll work on that". Not: "you are nitpicking, irritating, 'excessive' or anything". My points are nowhere dishonest, personal or unrelated to the topic. They are sound and should be encouraging. As said, I have enough credentials in the field of reviewing content. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tisquesusa: Could I draw your attention to the way that SlimVirgin opposed this article below. She has demonstrated what I was trying to say above: she has said on what grounds from WP:WIAFA she is opposing and explained why. This makes it clearer for everyone where we stand and specifically what the nominator would have to do to address the reviewer's concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So considering one of your first comments before we've really had any real interaction was so I am convinced you'll find some friend who pushes this through too. is it really any wonder I am a bit defensive? and you claim nothing is personal yet that was directed straight at me. MPJ-DK  02:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see where I have used the words "awkward" or "disturbing"? Nor nitpicking, irritating or any of these other comments you put on me? I pointed out above that yes my defenses go up after your very personal claims. As stated I agree that the article could be improved by going a short "what is lucha libre" and "what are the general rules" sections, I am working on that, I am not just slapping that in there without a little work to ensure accuracy and sourcing. I do believe I indicated above that I agree with those changes, they are coming. As for "who are those fighters" I am struggling to see how that would even work - can you provide me with an example or two where this is done because I am not seeing how this could be accomplished without getting off track every time a different wrestler is mentioned.  MPJ-DK  03:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved the "rules" section up and made that the "background", setting the stage before moving on to the history of the championship. I still want do add a few things here and there to address a couple of uncertainties but I believe this is moving in the right direction??  MPJ-DK  04:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin edit

Oppose per 1(c). Most of the sources are not in English, so the text can't be checked without more difficulty than usual. I tried to check a few points at random, but I wasn't able to verify anything or determine whether the source was reliable, had a COI, was self-published, whether there was close paraphrasing, etc. If these checks can't be made with a reasonable amount of effort, whether by online research or visiting a library, the text fails WP:V.

WP:NOENG (part of V) says: "As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Quoting the sources in footnotes wouldn't entirely solve the verifiablity issue, but it might help. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you care to inform me of which points where the source is online and available in Spanish you were not able to check? Is using the built-in browser translator or translate.google.com considered an "unreasonable amount" of effort? As for reliability, COI etc. the first step could be to ask for information from me, I've had those questions posed plenty of time and explained the various sources and their RS status. And I agree, if something was disputed steps can be taken to verify it - is there anything you dispute? I have already provided alternate links to show three separate and independent sources support statements made in the test. But if there is a specific statement you want to dispute please do share so we can get it addressed.  MPJ-DK  22:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so perhaps I can illuminate the various sources for you.  MPJ-DK  01:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre - Primary source, used for non-contentious facts, to illustrate how CMLL presents the championship, name changes etc.
  • "Wrestling Title Histories" book - Published by Archeus Communications, not sure what else they've published, but this is the "championship bible" for pro wrestling - the website www.wrestling-titles.com is built on the information the gathered and the authors are considered an authority on championship history
  • Súper Luchas - A weekly published pro wrestling magazine, has been around for as long as I can remember, has a chief editor (Ernesto Ocampo) and other editorial staff listed on the inside of the first page. Published by mpresos Camsam, SA de CV who publish a number of other magazines.
  • MedioTiempo - Sports news website, run by MSN with a specific lucha libre editorial staff (chief editor Apolo Valdez)
  • Source #16 is from the Mexico City boxing and wrestling commission, their official ruleset.
  • Source 18 is from a Japanese pro wrestling promotion, reporting on one of their own shows - used to source uncontentious material such as the date of a championship change and the fact that there was only one fall in the match.
  • "Mondo Lucha a Go Go", book published by HarperCollins, one of the world's largest publishing companies (at least according to Wikipedia which is not a reliable source)
  • "Legends of Pro Wrestling" a book written by Tim Hornbaker, a journalist that has written countless books on wrestling, sorts and other topics.
Thank you for this information. Can you add quotations in footnotes? For example:

In 1999 CMLL began to tour Japan, promoting a series of wrestling shows under the name "CMLL Japan". The shows featured a mixture of CMLL and Japanese wrestlers. On February 27, 1999, CMLL held a one night tournament to determine who would be the first ever CMLL Japan Super Lightweight Champion, marking the first time in the history of CMLL that they used a championship specifically for that weight class.

The source is Royal Duncan and Gary Will (2000). "Mexico: CMLL Titles [Lutteroth]". Wrestling Title Histories. Archeus Communications. pp. 389–401. I'd be surprised if this is easy to borrow, and the paperback costs $188 to $840 on amazon.com. Can you add to a footnote what the source says that supports the text?
I agree it's not easy to find, I bought it on eBay myself, fortunately for a lot less than $188 I'll break it out of the high security vault and see if I can get a good quote for the citation. MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This specific reference cites the pages that cover all CMLL championships, proving the "negative" that no "Super Lightweight" championship was used by CMLL before 1999. I will put in a note. MPJ-DK  03:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put in the following footnote with the citation ""Wrestling Title Histories" documents that by 2000 CMLL had never used a championship for the "Super Lightweight" division, they had previously or were at the time promoting championships for the following weight classes: Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Middleweight and Welterweight." does that provide enough clarification?  MPJ-DK  03:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also "one night" needs a hyphen; replace "first ever" with "first", and try to rewrite the next part to avoid the repetition of "first". Also, this source is already cited in long form elsewhere in the article; and some citations have locations and some don't. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed.  MPJ-DK  03:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I go to this source—Súper Luchas staff (December 23, 2006). Ocampo, Ernesto (ed.). "Lo Mejor de la Lucha Libre Mexicana duranted el 2006". Súper Luchas (in Spanish). Mexico City, Mexico: Impresos Camsam, SA de CV. pp. 3–6. 192. Retrieved July 11, 2009.—all I can see are three comments, unless I'm missing something. The source is used to support:
(1) "Romero regained the title from Tommy Williams but never defended it afterward."
(2) An entry in the "Title history" table, and the sentence "Rocky Romero began working as 'Grey Shadow' in early 2008 but the title was never officially vacated until Romero began working for Asistencia Asesoria y Administracion (AAA)."
(3) Two entries in "List of combined reigns".
Ah okay I see what you are saying. The link is to show the magazine I am referring to, like an Amazon listing for a book which does not have a preview of content. I'm citing the magazine, the link is mainly to "prove" that it exists I guess. If that's confusing the link can go? And the source covers what you mentions except the 2008 information, I'll double check to make sure I have it in the right location. MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem. I neglected to source the note for that line, I had it under the next entry, I will put the same citation with the note to be clear, excellent catch.  MPJ-DK  03:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 11 is the same, also a Súper Luchas article; the link leads to comments, but no article.
Same as above, "proof" - if that's more confusing than helpful I'll be happy to remove it. MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one http://superluchas.com/2006/12/23/super-luchas-193/ appears to be a blog post advertising a book. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well not a blog, its Super Luchas posting that issue 193 is available, showing the cover and high lights again same purpose as a book link that takes you to Amazon.  MPJ-DK  02:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is itself "issue 193", compare http://superluchas.com/2006/12/23/super-luchas-192/ which would be "issue 192" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any links that don't go to source material should be removed, unless they're helpful in some way and not confusing. What does citation 9 say that supports the following? "In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero." SarahSV (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I will get them removed to reduce confusion. It basically stated that "Williams was being advertised locally as the CMLL World Super Lightweight on a show in October, so he must have won it on their last show held September 15".  MPJ-DK  03:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm not sure that's the same sentence. Would you mind posting the Spanish text that supports the sentence above (the one beginning "In 2005"), and the page number? SarahSV (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please quote the sentence in the text then? I'm confused.  MPJ-DK  03:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it wasn't clear. Can you post here the Spanish text, and the page number of the article, that supports the following? "In 2005, he lost the championship to Tommy Williams in a match that received no mainstream coverage; the title change was only made public when the local promotion held a rematch between Williams and Romero."
The source is: "Ocampo, Ernesto, ed. (January 3, 2006). "2005 Lo Mejor de la Lucha Mexicana". Súper Luchas (in Spanish). Mexico City, Mexico: Impresos Camsam, SA de CV. pp. 3–6. 140." SarahSV (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well my confusion stems from the fact that I told you what the source said in English - which you were uncertain it was the same sentence??? I have my magazines boxed in the closet, I'll dig through them for the page number, but unless my memory fails me English or Spanish that's basically what it said.  MPJ-DK  03:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spot check of the sources. I'm asking that you post the text in Spanish that supports that one sentence, so that I can read the original. SarahSV (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'll dig it out, I just wanted to be sure we're on the same page, sounded like we weren't but it looks like we are. It won't be tonight, it's late here so I'll find the physical magazine tomorrow and get you that quote.  MPJ-DK  04:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MPJ. SarahSV (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, thank you for the time you're putting in voluntarily, with as many FACs of mine that have died from lack of comments I welcome any and all constructive input to help make a better article.  MPJ-DK  04:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This is a rather better way of registering concern: SlimVirgin has specified on which criteria she is basing her oppose and explained why. This makes it actionable and leaves the picture clearer for everyone (and I'm not commenting on the merits or otherwise of this oppose or any other). It would help if other reviewers could follow a similar model. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright SlimVirgin I found what I was looking for. So it's on page 9 of the magazine. The page has a couple of different sections recapping the year for each championship. The specific section is labeled "Campeonato Mundial de Peso Super Ligero del CMLL". It only has one entry for 2005 and states Luchador del sur de California Tommy Williams fue anunciado como el campeón en octubre, así que él debe haber derrotado Rocky Romero el 15 de septiembre (I've tried my best to get the accent marks correct so it's as precise a quote as possible).
  • Is that what you are looking for? I will add the page number to the citation, do you think I should add the quote too or is that not necessary??  MPJ-DK  22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MJP, thanks for supplying that. I'd suggest adding quotations from the sources, either to a separate footnote or to the citation template, as well as page numbers, for the text based on (a) the magazine Súper Luchas; (b) the book Mondo Lucha a Go Go (which is cited twice in long form to support two sentences, refs 9 and 14, referenced to pp. 29–40 and 114–118); (c) the book Wrestling Title Histories (which is cited twice in long form to support multiple sentences, referenced to p. 388 and pp. 389–401); and (d) the Japanese source or sources. This is a short article, so that shouldn't be too much of a burden, but if it proves to be too much to add to footnotes, consider posting the quotations to a subpage, Talk:CMLL World Lightweight Championship/Sources.
    The citations should be written clearly, so that they're referenced once in long form then short thereafter, or once in long form using {{rp}} for page numbers. However you write them, there should be page numbers or smaller page ranges for each sentence or paragraph so that, if someone obtains these sources in future, they will know roughly where to look. Also, make sure every link leads to source material to reduce confusion. SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent suggestions, I was not aware of the "RP" template, I'll check into that and see which approach works better, I have not worked a lot with the short cite formatting.  MPJ-DK  01:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can help e with one of those, the book reference that is from page 389 to 401 is tricky. That section covers the championships promoted by CMLL in subsections, so to prove that CMLL did not have a "Super Lightweight" championship I'm basically stating that that page range does not show other championships for that division - I am trying to prove a negative with the citation. I put a note in with it, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to deal with it?  MPJ-DK  01:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a suggestion for how to deal with it here User:MPJ-DK/Houston Wrestling (ignore the title) where I do the long cite once and the various citations can be more specific with pages and matching exceps for the source. Does that match what you were suggesting??  MPJ-DK  02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPJ, the way you've added the quotation to citation 17 doesn't work, because you're using that source (ref name=SL140) four times, but the quotation applies only to one. Can you take a photograph of that page (p. 9) with your cellphone and email it to me? I'd like to get some sense of what the source is. SarahSV (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the entry in its entirety as there is nothing else on the page about the championship, a photo will not change that so perhaps I can explain instead.  MPJ-DK  10:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17A - Tommy Williams did not work for CMLL but in the southern California Independent circuit. so Romero defended it outside of CMLL on the independent circuit.
  • 17B - The rematch - actually the source did not say rematch so I'll have to reword that.
  • 17C - cites the win and the date - that is in the quote
  • 17D - cites when the reign began - that's in the quote as well
  • Thanks for explaining. To complete the spot check, I'd appreciate it if you would email me a photograph of p. 9 and the front cover of that edition. That'll give me a better sense of what this source is. Also, p. 140 is still in that citation, so that should be removed if not relevant. SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright three requests for pictures for slightly different reasons, I get it - you want to be sure I actually have the magazine ;-) I normally do not mail naughty pictures after the third date. I have been on a business trip since Friday and will not be home until mid-next week but I'll get you the pictures you need then.  MPJ-DK  12:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin I am back from my business trip, blech what a trip. Anyway I have what you're looking for - but how do I send them to you??  MPJ-DK  23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPJ-DK, thanks for the email and for sending a cover. To complete the spot check, I need page 9 of the source, which is Ocampo, Ernesto, ed. (January 3, 2006). "2005 Lo Mejor de la Lucha Mexicana", Súper Luchas, used here. SarahSV (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin so sorry about forgetting that, it's been one of those weeks you know?? I will take a quick photo and mail it to you.  MPJ-DK  19:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPJ-DK, got it, thank you. I'm wondering whether you sent the wrong cover. The source check is for the 3 January 2006 edition, issue 140, but the cover you sent says: "Lo mejor de la lucha libre mexicana durante el 2004" ("The best of Mexican wrestling during 2004"). That headline is from the January 2005 edition, issue 91, that you cite elsewhere, e.g. in Sin Piedad (2004), citation 2: "SuperLuchas staff (January 24, 2005). "Número Especial - Lo mejor de la lucha libre mexicana durante el 2004". Super Luchas (in Spanish). issue 91." SarahSV (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid I'm going to call a halt here. This has been open for nearly 3 months now. After struggling to get attention, there has been a flood of interest but progress has halted. There is an oppose outstanding from Sarah, and I think if we look hard enough there are actionable comments from Tisquesusa and Siuenti. I don't think we can promote with issues outstanding, and there is certainly not a consensus right now that this meets the FA criteria. My advice would be for the nominator to continue working with Sarah away from FAC and perhaps consult the other two editors to see what they think needs including to meet the FA criteria. This can then be renominated after the usual 2 week wait; there is no problem with contacting the editors who commented here in any new FAC as long as they are informed neutrally that the article has been renominated. Hopefully next time it will get a smoother run. I can be contacted at my talk page if anything is unclear here. Good luck in continuing to work on this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah dang! Last time I was on I thought I covered the last issue with Sarah, but I now see I sent the wrong cover to her - the right page of the actual source, but I accidentally took a picture of the wrong cover. Tough luck, but them's the breaks - as for Tisquesusa - I've addressed all reasonable items but have not heard back in quite a while so that discussion seems to be going nowhere as there has been no comments on any of my improements. As for Siuenti.... Anyway thank you for the patience, I appreciate it and thank you to everyone who helped make this a better, stronger article.  MPJ-DK  20:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/CMLL_World_Lightweight_Championship/archive1&oldid=1076191118"