Former good article nomineeReggie Parks was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 22, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 31, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that championship belt designer Reggie Parks, whose work was used by WWE, UFC, and Madonna, was the first wrestling opponent of future NWA Worlds Heavyweight Champion Dusty Rhodes?
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 9, 2021.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Grapple X (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Oppose — This is a subject who the real world has viewed as notable for decades. Someone on Wikipedia creates the article out of the blue in response to the news of his death. Par for the course around here, really. Specific to this case: the nominator creates this article, immediately nominates it at ITN/C, then days later nominates it at DYK. However, this is an article that exists as a reaction to someone's death, yet another editor had to add it to Deaths in 2021. This is blatant hat collecting. Why should we reward that? If you're looking for an excuse to ignore that, let's go over the article and nomination. The most obvious problem is the inclusion of a "Life" section, the smallest part of the article body. A biography is intended to tell the story of a person's life as a whole. Professional wrestling biographies already suffer greatly from the POV of a subject's life as a whole serving as a footnote to a whole bunch of topical POV/trivia. This article is nearly as much an article about championship belts, Stu Hart and WWE as it is an article about Reggie Parks. On to the nomination, the hook starts with "that championship belt designer Reggie Parks, whose work was used by WWE, UFC, and Madonna". The lead says the work for Madonna was an album cover. The way the hook is written, readers may be mislead into believing that he designed a belt for Madonna rather than an album cover. The hook in general reads like a series of coatracking mentions of others intended to puff up an article on an obscure subject. The footnote "Combination of refs 1, 5 and 6 in the article" is confusing. Are we supposed to be sourcing the fact about Dusty Rhodes or every single minute fact contained within the hook? Smells of puffery. So does this. There's no reason to use ((Sfn)) when there's only a single book citation in the article. The KISS principle goes a long way. As for the actual mention of Dusty Rhodes, "Joe Blanchard's Texas territory" is confusing to me. Other, more credible sources mention that the booking office for Texas at the time was centered around the Dallas and Houston promotions, which provided talent to local promoters throughout Texas. Therefore, the territory would have been Texas as a whole. Additionally, Blanchard's article states that he was a full-time wrestler until he started promoting in 1978, or a decade later. If your source consisted mostly of Dusty's personal recollections, what sort of editorial or fact-checking process existed prior to publishing? There's no online link provided to that source, so I really don't know. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearing on the "recent deaths" ticker has never been sufficient to disqualify a subject from DYK, this isn't abut "rewarding" anything. As to the hook—he did design a belt for Madonna, to wear on the album cover in question; the "refs 1, 5, and 6" part is simply because the hook isn't sourced to any one ref in particular; one of those refs discusses the connection to Rhodes, two details who have used his belt designs. A simpler hook could written, sure, but feel free to propose one in that case. If you wish to contest the Rhodes source; it's available to preview on Google Books, Rhodes himself describes the territory as Blanchard's and I have no reason to question that, but Blanchard's name can be omitted without losing anything. I'm not particularly keen on the tone of this review and the insinuation that it's "hat collecting" (is there some other purpose for DYK other than to ... run hooks?) or that by missing an opportunity to wikilink it on another page I've somehow committed a personal failing; this smacks of assuming bad faith in a run-of-the-mill nomination. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 02:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it bad that someone creates an article after news of a persons death and then nominate it for ITN or DYN?★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Trekker’s implication in their question. There is absolutely nothing wrong creating an article after news of a death and then nominating it to ITN/DYK. “Hat collecting”. What?? It’s one of the most bizarre ‘opposes’ I’ve ever seen. If RadioKAOS believes that the subject has been notable for decades then they should be thanking the creator for rectifying the omission from WP. Editors discovering notable topics from news items and seeing that a valid article is missing is a valuable route for the development of WP. Long may it continue! DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To T:DYK/P3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 18:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

Early life

Professional wrestling

Belt designing

Personal life

Footnotes

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over

Regrettably, Usernameunique has been inactive for a while and although they have replied to queries, they have twice failed to resume reviewing on the schedule they themselves proposed. The nomination status has been changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: I'm pinging you as I see it's been a while since you were active. I'll also send you an email. My plan is to place a second opinion here for you and then put the review on hold for two weeks to give you time to address the feedback. If not, hopefully there will be a roadmap that you can follow later, or someone else can take this on. Hope you're doing well! Also pinging BlueMoonset in case they'd like to be in the loop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, I had made the changes to the template and was looking to start a review - Noticed your comment when I was looking to leave my own ping for Grapple X. However, if you want to take it up, feel free. You are much more experienced here and would do a better job. I'll move to other pages. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CapnJackSp. Sorry I stepped on your toes here! I've been working for a few hours on my review and would love to keep going. I hope that's ok. I'll be sure to check the talk page history for any recent changes, and I recommend you pull the entry from the Backlog Drive list as soon as you decide to take it on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no issues with me at all. Happy editing! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greatly appreciated. Hit me up for an article copyedit as amends sometime. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grapple X. I hope this doesn't come off as pestering, but I wanted to give you time to address the issues below before this GAN is closed. I plan to keep it on hold for another week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to fail this nomination. I hope GrappleX or another interested editor can use the comments below as a roadmap for improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FFFeedback

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See feedback below
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Metro is a generally unreliable tabloid source (see WP:METRO). It's possible the specific article used and claims cited to it are exceptions. Please try and use other sources to replace it and let me know which facts don't have a replacement source.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Scrupulously adherent to NOR! I'm also tempted, having read the sources, to overstate Parks' relevance in the title belt field, relative to how the sources describe him.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Ran a toolforge report and spot checked a few phrases. Checks out.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Could use a non-free lead image as noted below
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Good caption. Has alt text (thanks!)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Please address the comments below. As noted above, I'm willing to leave this on hold for two weeks in the hopes of enticing Grapple X back from inactivity. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GA notes

Thanks for an enjoyable reading and learning experience. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-GA notes (optional)

Again, none of this part is necessary for a GA pass, but I hope these comments are helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, really?[edit]

If Reggie Parks didn't have any children does that mean I dont really exist??? LOL My dad changed his last name, never re-married and lived well below his means all to protect me. He was the most amazing dad and I am lucky to be his child! RIP daddy. 2600:8800:7204:E770:8CBF:6BF8:3D12:9FD0 (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof?★Trekker (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. But why does it matter to you? ColdRainnThunder (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia needs sources for claims.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the attitude I gave you. The past couple years since he and my mother passed a week apart from each other (they were divorced). They adopted me as a baby. So what type of proof would you need? ColdRainnThunder (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]