Talk:Rip Hawk/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   It's gramatically fine all

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead: fine
   Layout: Could use a "See Also: Blonde Bombers" link. Too many short paragraphs looks almost like a list without the "*" (Especially the "Jim Crockett Promotions" section.
   Jargon: It has a few jargon problems - word like "Booker", I'd like to see a link to the explanation of what a "territory" is in regards to wrestling. the use of the word "Feud" without any explanations skirts the edge of "In Universe" problems.
   Words to Avoid: Looks okay to me
   Fiction: Here is a balance point, because it's not fiction as such but neither do the wrestlers technically "win" anything, it's pre-planned after all and I feel that this article has a few issues with this "In Universe" problem. It's been noted on MANY GA candidates and it's been resolved well in a lot of places. See for instance Bobby Eaton for one way to handle it and make it work within the framework of Wikipedia's rules.
   List Incorporation: Complies to the WP:PW MOS so that's fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   I see plenty of sources and they all appear to be from reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Inline citations are used :)

   C. No original research:

   I don't see anything that's O.R.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I'm going to say "Yes" here even if it's heavily on wrestling, he's from the Kayfabe era where there isn't much known about their private lives. What's there is good and sourced.

   B. Focused:

   It's definitly summary style, at times I'd actually like a few more details than "WOn this title" and that's about the entire paragraph.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks neutral, nothing neither overtly positive or negative, nothing controversial either.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   these old school articles hardly ever have this problem, this is an easy pass.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No images (would be nice, not a requirement)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No images

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The problems with "In universe" and problems with "Layout" & "Fiction" need to be fixed. it's really close though.

A few comments that don't fit into the review form, I'd like some elaboration on the following statements

• unique for wearing suits to their matches - Why was that unique?
• the Blond Bombers were involved in a series of unusual matches - Explain why that was unusual, it's not that unusual today after all.

That's all for now. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I beliece I have addressed all of these concerns. Thanks for the detailed review, and please let me know if anything needs more work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read through it, I like the changes and I agree it's now a GA article, congratulations.MPJ-DK (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)