Talk:Masa Saito/GA1

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

Hi. I am reviewing your article Masa Saito for GA. I have read through it and have a couple of comments. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a dead link that I commented out: http://www.otherarena.com/htm/cgi-bin/biography.cgi?kenpater
 * In "Finishing and signature moves", why are some of the entries bolded and some are not?
 * I feel there are too many short sections, containing only a few sentences.
 * Other than describing his wrestling career in the form of the championships he won etc. there is very little sense of his character as a wrestler, his training, his motivation etc.
 * The brief section "Battery", other than saying that he was sent to prison, there is no mention of the impact of such an event on his life or his career.
 * There is nothing about his personal life. Normally, I am not a stickler for this, but in the absence of any personal information at all, something is needed in this article to bring the article subject to life.
 * The writing style is very dry and nothing stands out about this person for the average reader.


 * Final GA review (see here for criteria)

I am sorry to fail this article. Normally your articles are very good. Perhaps there just is not enough information available on Masa Saito to provide for a GA. You may, of course, resubmit the article at GAN or list it at GAR. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): The prose is grammatically correct, but very dry and uninteresting. b (MoS): No MoS errors noted
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): The article is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable  c (OR): No original research
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): The article does not set the subject in sufficient context for the general reader b (focused): It is too focused and does not contain sufficient information on the subject to be interesting
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: