Talk:Arthur Frederick Bettinson

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arthur Frederick Bettinson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 19:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I"ll give this one a read. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• What does "joiner" mean in BritEng? A person who constructs the wooden components of a building, such as stairs, doors, and door and window frames.
• You haven't explained Bettinson's connection to the Pelican Club Bettinson was involved with the Pelican Club but the sources are vague. The chief reason for adding this was because I wanted to explain the the background of the boxing establishment in the UK, which Bettinson was massively responsible for changing.
• "The NSC board was the precursor to the British Boxing Board of Control. " Needs a source  Done
• Things like " Boxing in the UK was on trial."... the article suffers from a lack of encyclopedic tone in a few spots. Have changed wording to be more matter of fact in style
• "5-pound (2.3 kg) gloves were used for the bout (the maximum weight was 8 pounds [3.6 kg]). " Whoa, sure about that, those would be HUGE gloves. corrected, Can't believe i've never spotted that!
• So much of this article belongs over in National Sporting Club, not here. This is a biography, not History of the National Sporting Club (a redlink, but so much of this content would fit there)

^That's the big hold up, and quite frankly, why I consider this review inclined to fail. It just isn't a biography, it doesn't stay focused on his life, it goes off in great detail about the legal troubles of the NSC and others surrounding Bettinson. It's choppy, there are lots of one-two sentence paragraphs. On the good side, it appears meticulously researched and largely appropriately sourced. I['ll put it on hold for now. Courcelles (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Evening courcelles. Thanks for taking the time to look. I have corrected the silly little mistakes you have pointed out. The reason there is so much about the NSC in this article is because Bettinson was the architect of the club, it's rules and ethos. He was the lynch pin responsible for it's success and the single point of failure when he retired. It was his lifes work. Thats the same reason i put in so much detail about boxer deaths in his club, to illustrate his importance to the boxing world.

You have given me food for thought. I am actually working on a re-write of the National Sporting Club at the moment here and am struggling not to repeat this article.

• Would it make sense for me to just move the relevant NSC information to the NSC article and abbreviate this article to be more personal and to the point? Without all the background about his work at the NSC, it'll be quite a short article. But i do concede your point. Would it still be worth considering for GA?

I appreciate your comments, you're clearly a very accomplished and experienced editor.

Kind regards,,

--Okeeffemarc (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Let me think about it for a while... I'd like another set of eyes, so I'm going to set the GA template for a second opinion... Courcelles (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have read the article and concur. The NSC sections are written without adequately attributing importance to Bettinson, he was obviously involved (most likely in great detail) but the article doesn't demonstrate this. In the average paragraph you'd expect to see the name Bettinson 2 or 3 times and this isn't the case. I'm not taking over this review, just pushing the process along. Szzuk (talk) 15:25, 02 August 2018 (UTC)

As we agree, I'm going to fail this article and suggest work outside the GA process to convert it into more of a biography, and splitting some material into the NSC article. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)