GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]