This review is transcluded from Talk:James Scott (boxer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

• #2 ranked contender - can we say #2 in prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lee Vilenski: I'm unsure what you mean by this comment, but I'll be glad to fix it when I know. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean saying "number 2", rather than #2. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Oh, I see. As I don't usually write articles on boxers, much less anything in sports, I wasn't sure how to handle this. Got it done. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• later stripped of the ranking because of his criminal record and incarceration - how did they not know about it? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I couldn't tell you the answer to that question, and I think that's actually part of the nonsense that was Scott's career. The best one I got was from later in the article, that either Bob Arum just found out or as Scott thought, Arum was taking it out on Scott for not signing a deal with him because Murad Muhammad told him not to. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And a little addendum of speculative stuff I didn't put in because it is speculation but have just in case you're curious: Arum was high up in influencing the WBA according to a couple of the sources. Regardless, one of the speculations made in the ESPN podcast was that the WBA didn't think much of it until all of a sudden Scott has a real chance at the championship, and then there was fear the title would be behind bars. Another source mentioned that Muhammad asked after the champion Galíndez was stripped for the bout between Lopez (#1) and Scott (#2) to be for the championship, and doesn't say that was directly the cause but the timing is curious as to why then, all of a sudden, the WBA had to question Scott having a ranking. The WBC clearly thought about not doing it, but no one at the WBA did until it was possible they would have a champion behind bars, and who knows how much of an influence Arum really had. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lede does struggle a little from not explaining why someone who is in prison is allowed to take part in professional fights. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried to clear this up by highlighting his earning of pay and WBA rankings was controversial. It's a little hard to clarify completely in a lead because many prisons do operate boxing programs of some kind where the prisoners box each other (Dewey Bozella being a great example of a prison boxer), but getting the chance to fight professionally for pay and have fights promoted was what set Scott apart. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "a typical Black - is Black a common name? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done No, but it was capitalized in the source and I was directly quoting Scott there. Regardless, de-capitalized. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He found it difficult to cope or communicate his feelings, except to his common-law wife. - we haven't mentioned his partner - is it worth doing so? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, not really. No source I saw mentioned who this woman was other than it was a woman Scott was living with in Miami, and there's no mention in reliable sources at all after his imprisonment in Rahway. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing from the lede with # needs to be fixed throughout. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• $283 and bags containing a white powder substance were stolen - never start a sentence with a number (or in this case, a symbol) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Red Phoenix ^talk 20:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• happen to stool pigeons." - Easter egg link, we should explain in prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Red Phoenix ^talk 21:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He was assigned the inmate number 57735. - seems like trivia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It does to me too, but it's highlighted in a number of sources, including the New York Times using it in the title of a feature on Scott. A number of Scott's televised matches also introduced him as "inmate 57735", so I did think it was somewhat important to get the number in the article somewhere only because it's mentioned a lot. I'll defer to your judgment if you think differently, however. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 4-1 - odds usually are ratios. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Red Phoenix ^talk 21:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link TKO Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can if you insist, but TKO redirects to knockout, which is linked earlier in the article. Was trying to avoid MOS:OVERLINK. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The "record" column in the fight history is confusing - is this the opponent's record? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Yes, that's correct. Rephrased. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the fight history sourced too? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's sourced to BoxRec, the external link. Before I put this in, I wanted to ask where might be the best place to put the citation so one understands that cites the whole table. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:FLAG applies, and the state flags should be removed from this table. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Red Phoenix ^talk 20:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d be more than glad to see if I can return the favor soon. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Great work - happy to pass. This was a quality article and really did just need a touch up. If you have anything else you want looking at, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]