Talk:Nick Bockwinkel/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vogon101 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also judging with reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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 table As 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 :)
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
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).
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
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Most edits seem to be by same user @McPhail with last large edits back in August 2021
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
Overall:
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)[reply]

Wow - had completely missed this section - in that case all looks good to me! Vogon101 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vogon101:: thank you very much, that's excellent. McPhail (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]