Talk:Nick Bockwinkel/GA1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by McPhail in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vogon101 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Also judging with reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography
Pass
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- Prose is reasonably well written but very dense and hard to follow in places, especially in later sections of the chronology. Whilst this could be improved I think it still meets the requirement for GA; Lead Section:
- clear introduction section summarising main points of the article; Layout: Article is in chronological order with reasonable sub-headings breaking up the prose. Headings are standard.; Words to watch ; Fiction *N/A*; Lists Unsure about the list "Championships and accomplishments" - feel this could be better with dates of accomplishments, perhaps presented as a table, especially as most of the info is covered in the prose this could (perhaps) be a collapsing tableAs mentioned by McPhail this is actually the correct format as per professional wrestling project style guide which is a section I'd missed (mea culpa!) so this is all good.
Overall this I think all meets the requirements for GA status though prose could be improved over time :)
- Prose is reasonably well written but very dense and hard to follow in places, especially in later sections of the chronology. Whilst this could be improved I think it still meets the requirement for GA; Lead Section:
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- No obvious plagiarism or copyright violations. Sources seem to be reasonable reliable for this topic, generally being websites dedicated to chronicling this sort of history as well as suitable books
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Article covers the whole professional and personal life of the subject in sufficient but not excessive detail. Life history may be slightly too detailed, however it certainly doesn't reach the level of Wikipedia:Splitting (see Wikipedia:Summary_style#When_to_avoid_splits).
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Article is fair to the subject, covers the main points of his life without passing opinion in Wikipedia's voice
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Most edits seem to be by same user @McPhail with last large edits back in August 2021
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Media seems to be suitably public domain, could certainly be more though if it is available
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- @Vogon101: many thanks for all your work on this review. With regards to the "Championships and accomplishments" section, this is the format set out in the Wikipedia Professional Wrestling Manual of Style, which is used on thousands of articles. I'd therefore be somewhat reluctant to introduce a new format purely for this article. McPhail (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wow - had completely missed this section - in that case all looks good to me! Vogon101 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Vogon101:: thank you very much, that's excellent. McPhail (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)