Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
I have to say that this article is just not ready, it has several major issues.
In some sections I just had too many comments to make it work in the review template so I split them into sections below.
I have several issues here, some general, some specific these are just what I came up with before my brain said "no mas!"
Lead: I'd like to see consistency, it's either all sourced or not sourced at all IMO.
Layout: Generally okay, althought it wouldn't hurt to have left adjusted one or two of the pictures to give it a more dynamic flow.
Jargon: I see you've tried to go the "hero/villain" route with face/Heel - you weren't consistent as I saw the term used once or twice. Other words such as squash & job are used but not explained what they mean in this context, which can be an issue since both "Squash" and "job" have totally different means in wrestling than in general. The concept "tag team" could have used a link first time it's used, just to be nice.
Words to Avoid: Looks to be okay.
Fiction: Here is the clincher - 90% of the wrestling section is written totally "in universe" with the major problems being: Titles & matches are won and lost, never is it hinted at that it's not technically a competitive contest. Feuds are presented as real, personal and not the scripted storylines that they really are. It doesn't have to say "SCRIPTED STORYLINE" every single time but it'd be nice that it didn't actually look like Regal developed a genuine friendship with Eugene etc. His roles as General Manager, not once is it explained that it's an on-screen role and that he doesn't actually hold an executive position at WWE. I could go on but I think by now you're getting the picture.
List Incorporation: Complies to the WP:PW MOS so that's fine.
Big problem here, the majority of the sources, I'd estimate about 66% of them are Primary sources, in other words the WWE writing about the WWE, it needs to be reliable secondary sources - especially since the subject is still alive. the occasional WWE.com source would slide but not to the degree it's used here. While the book is generally an okay source it is also a primary source, Matthews on Matthews, and as such I'm a little reluctant to accept it as a source for the controversy over his match with Goldberg and why he was fired. It's potentially biased and it'd be good to have a second independent source back it up if possible.
A lot of stuff is cited and cited correctly with inline citations and everything, but there are places where there's nothing - bupkis. List of examples I stumbled upon (not a total list)
This is a most definite fail here, his WCW days gets hardly ANY coverage in fact a 5 year period gets less text than "Rivalries with Scotty 2 Hotty and Paul Burchill (2005–2006)". His latter WWE sections go way overboard at times resorting to "week to week" recaps instead of reducing it to the major points of a storyline/feud/angle - It could benefit from more summary, less week to week recap. detail overload in the wrestling sections from "Intercontinental and Tag Team Championship rivalries (2002–2005)" and forward.
Oh and - maybe have a uniform rating of the article? I see "Start" and I see "C". Shouldn't it also be "B" rated before you go for GA??
Hope this is helpful. MPJ-DK ( talk) 09:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
I have to say that this article is just not ready, it has several major issues.
In some sections I just had too many comments to make it work in the review template so I split them into sections below.
I have several issues here, some general, some specific these are just what I came up with before my brain said "no mas!"
Lead: I'd like to see consistency, it's either all sourced or not sourced at all IMO.
Layout: Generally okay, althought it wouldn't hurt to have left adjusted one or two of the pictures to give it a more dynamic flow.
Jargon: I see you've tried to go the "hero/villain" route with face/Heel - you weren't consistent as I saw the term used once or twice. Other words such as squash & job are used but not explained what they mean in this context, which can be an issue since both "Squash" and "job" have totally different means in wrestling than in general. The concept "tag team" could have used a link first time it's used, just to be nice.
Words to Avoid: Looks to be okay.
Fiction: Here is the clincher - 90% of the wrestling section is written totally "in universe" with the major problems being: Titles & matches are won and lost, never is it hinted at that it's not technically a competitive contest. Feuds are presented as real, personal and not the scripted storylines that they really are. It doesn't have to say "SCRIPTED STORYLINE" every single time but it'd be nice that it didn't actually look like Regal developed a genuine friendship with Eugene etc. His roles as General Manager, not once is it explained that it's an on-screen role and that he doesn't actually hold an executive position at WWE. I could go on but I think by now you're getting the picture.
List Incorporation: Complies to the WP:PW MOS so that's fine.
Big problem here, the majority of the sources, I'd estimate about 66% of them are Primary sources, in other words the WWE writing about the WWE, it needs to be reliable secondary sources - especially since the subject is still alive. the occasional WWE.com source would slide but not to the degree it's used here. While the book is generally an okay source it is also a primary source, Matthews on Matthews, and as such I'm a little reluctant to accept it as a source for the controversy over his match with Goldberg and why he was fired. It's potentially biased and it'd be good to have a second independent source back it up if possible.
A lot of stuff is cited and cited correctly with inline citations and everything, but there are places where there's nothing - bupkis. List of examples I stumbled upon (not a total list)
This is a most definite fail here, his WCW days gets hardly ANY coverage in fact a 5 year period gets less text than "Rivalries with Scotty 2 Hotty and Paul Burchill (2005–2006)". His latter WWE sections go way overboard at times resorting to "week to week" recaps instead of reducing it to the major points of a storyline/feud/angle - It could benefit from more summary, less week to week recap. detail overload in the wrestling sections from "Intercontinental and Tag Team Championship rivalries (2002–2005)" and forward.
Oh and - maybe have a uniform rating of the article? I see "Start" and I see "C". Shouldn't it also be "B" rated before you go for GA??
Hope this is helpful. MPJ-DK ( talk) 09:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)