Wikipedia

Talk:Sako Chivitchian/GA1

< Talk:Sako Chivitchian
Latest comment: 13 years ago by EdChem in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry for the delays in getting to this, but I've been battling bronchitis the last few days. I'm going to try to get to this tonight sometime. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK. This article needs a fair bit of work, but I imagine it'll get there.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    • an Armenian mixed martial artist Typically, when an acronym is used in the body of an article, it's specified after it's spelled out the first time. Kind of awkward here, though, since "MMA" in the bulk of the article refers to the sport, not the practitioner. Gonna think about this one a little.
    • He has placed first and third in the Junior U.S. Open Judo Championships Rather than an indirect and imprecise usage of the present progressive (which just sounds weird when talking about events long since past), why not state directly which years he acquired which placings?
    • In addition to judo, Chivitchian took up wrestling and by age 14 Comma after wrestling
    • He next took up MMA This might be a good spot for mixed martial arts (MMA) and yes, it's okay to repeat the wikilink (lead vs. body)
    • He next took up MMA, having his first fight at age 15, which he won in 98 seconds by armbar. Hmm. Two subordinate clauses in one sentence kind of makes for a run-on. Suggest revising.
    • Chivitchian's opponent in his first fight was Timothy Morris, who has previously lost to teammate Manny Gamburyan. This is gibberish to me as an uninitiated reader. Again, the present progressive for events long since past stands out as awkward. But really, I have no idea what the noun clause is supposed to mean.
    • In the years following, he took up jiu-jitsu and boxing. There are no year references in this paragraph. The last one is in the previous paragraph, 2001-2002 (which by the way should have an endash and not a hyphen). This introductory clause really is much too vague.
    • Despite having first fought MMA Is "fought MMA" common, proper usage? (I honestly don't know)
    • He won his return bout in January 2009 with a TKO victory Department of redundancy department. Also don't use acronyms if they haven't been spelled out. Spell out technical knockout.
    • followed up by a submission victory two months later. "up" is a bit of useless puffery. I'd take it out.
    • His performance was criticised by some Excise the WP:WEASEL word
    • In his first round fight, Chivitchian defeated Dane Sayers via unanimous decision.[15]

      Chivitchian faced Dane Sayers in his opening round matchup.       Department of redundancy department re-appears to strike its ugly ahead again.
    • His performance was criticised by some after he blatantly grabbed the fence on multiple occasions, to avoid being taken down, yet did not suffer a point deduction. One too many commas here. I'd take out the comma after occasions. It sounds like there's a subject pronoun missing in the final clause as well (yet he did not suffer a point deduction)
    • In the quarter-finals I don't think this word is supposed to be hyphenated.
    • Brookins then got hooks in and worked for a rear naked choke, eventually sealing it soon after Total Greek to me. Either explain the jargon, or introduce some links, or (preferably) both.
    • This entire section (under the "The Ultimate Fighter" header) assumes a familiarity with the program/competition. He defeated Toby Grear in the debut episode, yet his "first round fight" took place later? What was this the first round of, anyway? Certainly, you needn't give the whole history of everything associated with the program, but clear that up and mention briefly that prospect fighters were put into a single-elimination tournament (checking related articles tells me this) for....a contract? I don't know.
    • Chivitchian made his UFC debut at The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck Finale I'm confused – weren't his appearances on The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck for the UFC? And why is The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck Finale not italicized? Was it a pay-per-view event? A normal television broadcast?
    B. MOS compliance:  
    • The lead seems much too short. Granted, this is not a terribly long article, but I can't imagine a GA having a one-paragraph lead. You can mention his accomplished junior record and touch briefly on his fortunes in The Ultimate Fighter program here to at least get a two-paragraph lead. I'm not sure right now it adequately summarizes the article.
    • Is "Mixed Martial Arts" a proper noun like "Ultimate Fighting Championship" is? I don't believe so, and if it's not, it shouldn't be all first letter uppercase like that.
    • Tangentially related to this article (and therefore something I can't require you to do), but there's something wrong with the navbox at the bottom of the page. It apparently does not exist. The v and d links for view and discuss the template are both red (it probably means a hardcoded instance of the template's name in the template itself is misspelled).
    • WP:MOSFLAG#Accompany flags with country_names Those instances in the table under the "Mixed Martial Arts record" heading have just flags and names. This is a no-no. Use a template like {{flagathlete}} or if there's one more suitable for this sport, use it. If you mean to claim the wishy-washy However, some editors feel that some tables such as those containing sports statistics (example) are easier to read if {{flag}} is used throughout. exemption, I'm going to have to ask for a second opinion on GAN.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    • All links are live, which is good. Citation 2 needs to be converted from a bare ref.
    • This is a common error (I used to make it all the time myself), but the website itself is not the publisher of the work being cited. It is the work itself (think of an article in a newspaper. You cite the article, which is printed in a newspaper, but the newspaper itself is published by another entity – say, the Gannett Company or The New York Times Company). For sherdog.com, it would seem (per the wikipedia article) that "Crave Online Media" is probably the publisher. You can usually find the publisher at the bottom of a cited page, or if the site has an "about us" section it's usually also there as well. You want whatever name comes after a copyright statement. This is also sometimes used as a way of gauging whether a source meets WP:RS, though it's hardly a foolproof method.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    • What makes mmajunkie.com/ a reliable source? Its title bar states "UFC blog for UFC news, UFC rumors" Doesn't exactly scream RS to me.
      • Dug a little, and the about us page certainly satisfies WP:RS. But MMA Spot actually is a little troubling. I can't find a publisher at a glance, and on its "Terms and Conditions" page we find: "ALTHOUGH ALL INFORMATION AND MATERIALS CARRIED ON THIS WEB SITE IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, MMA SPOT MAKES NO REPRESENTATION, NEITHER EXPRESSLY NOR IMPLIEDLY, AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, TIMELINESS OR RELIABILITY OF THE MATERIALS OR ANY INFORMATION ON THIS WEB SITE." That's a definite problem.
    C. No original research:  
    • Looks fine pending any RS concerns.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    • I hate this criterion, because it assumes that I already know everything about the article I'm reviewing. AGF'ing a pass here.
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    • Aww, no purrty pictures.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text:  
    • n/a
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
Cheers for the review, but I don't have the time to spare to dedicate myself to the article. When I posted it for review, I did, but no longer. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am the other substantial editor of this article. Since Paralympiakos does not have time, can I take over the nomination and complete the GA process? EdChem (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am assuming the answer is yes, so I have made a start. EdChem (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What's the status of this review? No activity in a couple weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

My last couple of weeks have had major RL issues, and my wiki-time has been sucked up by an FAC and the fallout that followed. I have a talk page message in to Paralympiakos as I want to ask him a couple of questions, but no response yet. EdChem (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think that may have been directed at me actually :p I totally forgot about this (only saw it now because EdChem's comment popped up on my watchlist). Sorry. Will get back to it. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 20:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply


You know what, I'm not gonna cause a fuss if someone wants to take over for me. I'm sorry I've been so absent, EdChem. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

FYI, Paralympiakos has now responded to question I was asking about, regarding fights in the text but not the table of results. Maybe I can get this into shape by tomorrow - I'll notify you on your talk page. EdChem (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sako_Chivitchian/GA1&oldid=1137170440"