Talk:Kenny Omega/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It contains copyright infringements - Checked all images - All are free  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * CopyVio check brings up a 54% chance of an infringement, however, I don't buy it.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). - No tags, other than a dead link.   Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Links

 * No disambig links  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * several referencing errors that need tagging/fixing/archiving  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Lede

 * Wikilink Professional wrestler  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You should consider if you need to abbreviate a company name in the lede, if you don't use the abbreviation in the lede. Such as with AEW. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Omega is perhaps best known for his tenure -  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A full list of his titles in New Japan is irrelevent. Only major titles in the lede.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Omega is also known for his time as part of the" - Bad word choice. Not GA level wordage.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This whole lead both goes into too much detail, and too little. It is not well written  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You've wikilinked the Young Bucks, you don't also need to say who they are.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The 6-man titles are hardly a career highlight. Shouldn't be in the lead. Read WP:WEIGHT.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * More information on a tonne of titles in the last paragraph. The lede should summarize, and give a bit of info on career progression. This lede says he's worked places, and won all this stuff. It's hardly a summary.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Career

 * Him having a sister should be in the personal life section.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I started to do a review of this, but it's just not going to pass. I'll summarize my issues with the prose below, but there's quite a lot:
 * WP:NPOV issues. Things like "impressive debut", " quickly became a rising star in PCW", can't be used, unless they are suitible  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments like "Smith has stated in several interviews that his time spent with DSW was poor and has been particularly critical of promoters DeMott and Jody Hamilton,[17] and trainer Bob Holly.[21]", are fine, but should mention who these interviews are with.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Each section after the WWE section starts with "on X date, Omega debuted for". I understand he worked a lot of places simultaneously, however, it has zero flow.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * every section just goes through a list of results (apart from NJPW, which has other issues, below) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * NJPW has HUGE paragraphs. This needs serious cutting down.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * I will start the review today, however, I may not finish the review, and will restart on Monday. Feel free to update the article to reflect any thing I have already highlighted, or discuss anything with me on this page, or my talk page.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)