Talk:Montel Vontavious Porter/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Alright I've completed my review of this article and I'm putting it on hold until a few issues have been addressed. But I'd like to start out the review with some positive comments. It's a good article, it avoids some of the problems a lot of wrestling related articles fall into - so don't be discouraged by the comments, it's really close to being a true "Good Article", most of the stuff listed in my comments are quickly fixed. If I didn't mention something then I don't have problems with it (such as pictures etc.)

I'm just going to give you a list of stuff I find problematic with this article and that I'd like to see addressed.


 * Sources! I looked at the list and 22 out of 67 sources are from wwe.com and that's a little problematic. WWE writing about WWE is a primary source and 1/3 of all the sources being primary sources isn't a desirable ration I'd like to see this brought down a bit, there must be other sources out there.
 * I've removed some, however, most of the ones that are left contain info not covered by other sources - some are real-kayfabe ones, with MVP's burns or not having his "contract incentive bonus" for example, others are for his nicknames and title histories.


 * Lead
 * Facts mentioned in the lead not mentioned in the main text which it should be really.
 * "also known as Hassan Hamin Assad" not mentioned when, where or why
 * I'm not sure when, where or why tbh. I don't think it's a ring name. It's from his arrest record - http://www.dc.state.fl.us/InmateReleases/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=429548424 - under aliases it states "HASSAN HAMIN ASSAD".
 * Ah I see, well then that's alright. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Burke was trained by former professional wrestlers Soulman Alex G and Norman Smiley.
 * Added to main.
 * Citations, the lead should either be without citations at all or fully cited, this is somewhere inbetween - pick an approach and stick to it. I have no preference I just like it to be consistently "A" or "B"


 * Career
 * May I suggest maybe a change to "Professional wrestling career" or "Pro wrestling career" to give a clear indication of what this section is about?


 * Early life and career
 * Call it something along the lines of "Early career" or "getting started" or something because "early life" indicates that there should be more about his actual life before wrestling. And there are more facts known, they're just in another section. So a rename of the section would make it fit in with the overall subject which is his wrestling career.
 * This would be the place to write about who trained him, it was in the lead, it's even got a source - put it to use in the right place as well.
 * That's it? his career from 2002 to 2005 summed up in basically 2 lines? I see TNA mentioned, FIP mentioned and three other federations under his "Championships and accomplishment" section. This is a pitfall of many wrestling articles they do not tend to give a lot of focus on their "Non-WWE" parts of their career, but for this article to be "broad in coverage" it must not only cover other aspects of his life than wrestling but also cover all aspects of his wrestling career. It can't be that hard to flesh out a few more details.


 * World Wrestling Entertainment
 * I'd suggest replacing the "Gimmick" word with maybe "In ring persona" or something like that, still linking to gimmick but actually explaining the word without it seeming like a distraction from the text.
 * "And the real life, Terrell Owens" - Doesn't make complete sense, seems like some text may have fallen out here or something?


 * SmackDown! (2006–present)
 * Dates: Don't forget to put the year with the date - I mean in the current section who can say for sure what year "August 24" is? And lets take the longer view, in 3 years who'll know for sure? always qualify dates with years unless they're in a section that clearly indicates the range.
 * "Heralded entrance" - soulds a bit like a Peacock word to me, consider a more neutral substitute?
 * "before defeating the unknown wrestler Marty Garner" - the fact that Garner has a Wikipedia article is counterproductive to the term "unknown" and may confuse readers. Consider a more accurate description.
 * I've reworded it, but you might have to check it. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cut a promo" - consider a less WP:Jargon way of putting this.
 * Feud - the word itself is pretty self explanatory, most people know what a feud is - only I'd say it's more appropriate to use the term "Storyline" here, eliminates any potential misunderstandings.
 * "Kayfabe" - I'm very against using the term kayfabe as just another word without anything saying "suffered kayfabe 1st degree burns" doesn't make sense upon reading it, you actually HAVE to check out the link to get it and that's not a good way to do it.
 * Reworded. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "MVP appeared on SmackDown! introducing various supposed champions from around the world, giving them exaggerated measurements before proceeding to squash them in short order." - two things, "Squash"? and what does "giving them exaggerated measurements" mean?? maybe clarify a bit what went on??
 * I've reworded the sqaush. As for the "exaggerated measurements" part, I don't know. It's not mentioned in the sources there, so I removed it. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of places there is a citation after a "," - Citations should all be placed at the end of the sentence, that's the Wikipedia preferred way of doing it.
 * "His first major feud over the Championship" is technically wrong, his first feud over the championship was with Benoit, this was his first feud as a champion.

That's it, I know it may look like a lot but it's a lot of little details that can be knocked off one at a time. So the nomination is on hold giving you a week to address the problems. Lemme know if you got other questions MPJ-DK (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fast work, good work too. I've looked at the sources and the WWE sources aren't used for anything controversial so I'm satisfied with that. Congratulations it's now a Good Article, good job. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)