Talk:Lamar Parks

Lamar Parks has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 11, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Boxing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing

WikiProject Boxing "To Do":

→ Help pick the next article for collaboration.

FA Noms:

Review:

New:

Expand: Hasim Rahman | Gabriel Elorde | Gerry Peñalosa | Ike Quartey | Joel Casamayor | Jean-Marc Mormeck | Odlanier Solís | Yuriorkis Gamboa

Collaborate: Boxing

Discuss:

Annotate: Muhammad Ali | Sugar Ray Robinson | Oscar De La Hoya | Jack Dempsey | Rocky Marciano | Joe Louis | George Foreman | Roy Jones Jr. | Marvin Hagler | Lennox Lewis | Evander Holyfield | Manny Pacquiao | Érik Morales

Assess:

Create:

United States: South Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 02:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reviewing this article as part of the June Backlog drive.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I don't see any grammar issues. The lead is too short; please expand it and make sure that it summarizes the article. The tone is a bit too informal for encyclopedic writing, but it's adequate for a GA. This is especially true in the "HIV diagnosis" section; for example, you state that Clark weighed "just 64 pounds". The word "just" doesn't fit the tone of typical encyclopedic writing, but like I say, it's adequate for a GA. If you want to tighten up the prose, I suggest that you go through the article for other instances, although I'm not requiring it for this review.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I unfortunately was only able to check a few sources because most of the sources you use are from Newspapers.com and require a subscription. All your sources are reliable, since they're mostly of reliable newspapers like The Greenville News, but their inaccessibility doesn't allow me to check for plagiarism or close paraphrasing, or if your sources support your assertions. As a result, I'm AGF that they're fine. Is there a ref available for the chart in the "Professional boxing record"? If so, please include it.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Parks' story seems to end in 1995, when he had to leave boxing. You only state that he lived near Greenville. The War, Baby source (ref35) says that he owned a small business (p. 49) as of 1995, so you should include that info. Is there any information out there about his life in the past 30 years? As a reader, that's something I'd like to know, but I won't require it for this review. If you can find the information, I suggest adding it anyway.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Newer article with no evidence of edit warring.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No images, I assume because there are no free ones available in Commons. If you reassure me that there aren't, I'll overlook it.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
You're almost there. Take care of the issues I've raised and I'll happily promote to GA. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for taking this on. I'm not the greatest at writing up the lead sections. How do you suggest I improve on this one? Also, WP:MOSBoxing says that "references are not needed within the table" so I've never really included them. How would you add the BoxRec source to the professional boxing record section? Best, JTtheOG (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOG:, you're welcome. I didn't know about the boxing style guide's recommendation about charts; thanks for letting me know and please ignore that piece of feedback. Yah, I've always struggled with leads, too. I suggest that you read MOS:LEAD; the boxing style guide also has some tips about writing leads. Ya know, technically the current lead is fine because it's two paragraphs long, which is appropriate for an article less than 15,000 characters. My problem with it, IMO, is that it doesn't summarize the article enough. Now that I think about it, the current verison is adequate for a GA. If you want to practice writing leads, though, I suggest that you add more to better summarize the article, but I don't think I should require it in order for it to pass to GA status. All that being said, in my characteristic long-windedness, I'll go ahead a pass this to GA. Congrats, and best. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]