Talk:Mark Caso/GA1

Written review

• Hi GauchoDude, and thank you for nominating this item for GA.

Re images

There is currently nothing in the article, which for a fairly obscure sports figure is to be expected. I have skimmed Google Images and YouTube, and confirmed that no freely licensed media appears to be available. Given a year of birth of c. 1960, anything after his yearbook photo would most likely be copyrighted.

Re Stability

• No issues.

Re Referencing

• What makes greatersyracusesportshalloffame.com a high quality reliable source? It should be accepted for induction, but for the medal count?
• What makes Syracuse.com a high-quality reliable source? Furthermore, the rating is based on the opinion of a teacher at the school; that should be clearly attributed in the article
• For UPI.com, it would be nice to note that UPI stands for United Press International
• For usagym, it would be nice to note that the publisher is USA Gymnastics
• esmschools.org is dead. What makes the page a high quality reliable source?
• IMDB is user generated and not a reliable source.
• For pac-12.com, it would be nice to note that the publisher is Pac-12 Conference
• "Four Join the OSU Gymnastics Program" is duplicated.

• I mention those publisher concerns as it helps readers ascertain whether the sources are high quality at a glance.

Re Copyright and verifiability

• Copyvio tool finds no issues.
• Isabella is not mentioned in the source provided; her name was added by a new user.
• While checking the reliability of the sources, I confirmed that several elements are included and paraphrased accurately, including induction in the Syracuse Hall of Fame and his recovery after his spinal injury.

Re Prose and comprehensiveness

• Right away, I have concerns about oversectioning (MOS:OVERSECTION). Excluding the lede, there are five sections in this article, which is 570 words long. I'd recommend folding Gymnastics legacy through Personal life into a single section.
• He has been rated as the top athlete to ever come from the school across all sports. - As mentioned above, this should be attributed.
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze and its sequel should be in italics.
• Given the general paucity of information in the article, some of the content in the sources could be used. For example, you mention four medals, but the source is clear that he received gold in the still rings and bronzes in vault, parallel bars and horizontal bar. That would help flesh out the paragraphs a bit more.
• Likewise, Interview makes it clear that he joined UCLA not just to compete, but to work alongside people he thought would strive to be successful even in a school with little track record. Those little bits help flesh out his motivations, making more engaging reading, and also present a more rounded picture of what he is like as a person.
• This source indicates he had "residual paralysis in [his] arms and triceps"
• "Former UCLA Gymnast Breaks Out of His Shell in Ninja Turtles Movie" has a couple useful bits, like his determination to do a handspring in the heavy outfit, the use of a halo brace, drilling into his skull, claims that companies wanted to option his memoirs...
• Do you have access to the Wikipedia Library? ProQuest has some articles that seem to have been missed. "CASO'S ALREADY A SUCCESS WITHOUT MAKING U.S. TEAM", for example, specifies that the 1 1/2-twisting, 1 3/4 Arabian fell into disuse because of the danger involved; helps contextualize the injury. Similarly, Schroeder Captures Fourth Straight Title" indicates that he set a state record in 1978 that lasted until at least 1993. NAMES IN THE NEWS" indicates that he was coaching at a YMCA in 1989.
• Lede is two sentences, which even for an article this length seems a bit short. It should be beefed up.
• Existing prose meets the GA criteria in terms of quality.

Verdict

• I'm going to place this article on hold, with the primary concern being oversectioning. The comprehensiveness points above are not major aspects, and thus do not fall afoul of the GA criteria. That being said, I do think the sources haven't been mined fully, and there is room for growth. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492, more than happy to address. As this is the first article I've done, all of the notes seem quite overwhelming. More than happy to address. Per the above, it sounds like over-sectioning is, to you, an issue. Per your recommendation, I've mushed everything beyond the gymnastics career into one section. Please advise if you'd like any further changes to items additionally deemed as primary concerns or how to move forward with this process. GauchoDude (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi GauchoDude. Thank you. Have you been able to find a source to corroborate Isabella? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  There could be this Instagram post from an account that appears to be the subject, but I didn't add in the part about that daughter as I couldn't find anything from a more reputable source when I initially built out the article. We could either add that source as evidence for the second daughter or re-edit the section back to include just the one, I'm indifferent on either but probably makes more sense for the former if I had to pick. GauchoDude (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  That would substantiate her being his daughter (and should be okay under WP:SPS), but not the alma mater. I think it would be a compromise, having her name in the article with a reference.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'll leave it up to you as you know more here. Alternatively, we could have the sentence say "Caso is married to Beate Caso and the couple has two daughters, including Francesca who competes in collegiate gymnastics for the Oregon State Beavers women's gymnastics team." or something to that extent. GauchoDude (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Either way would work. As I said, I think an SPS makes sense for the other daughter, but if you want to stick to secondary sources it's fine.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am more than fine completely removing. It wasn't my addition because I couldn't find a proper source for it. While likely "incorrect", per Wikipedia this is probably the safest option for a BLP? GauchoDude (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, removing it would be safest for a BLP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  This has been done. I've also removed the duplicate citation. Anything else? GauchoDude (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, this looks good. Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)