Talk:Nick Bockwinkel/GA1

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

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

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


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

Pass
 * 1) 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 :)
 * 1) 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
 * 1) 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 Splitting (see Summary_style).
 * 1) 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
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Most edits seem to be by same user @McPhail with last large edits back in August 2021
 * 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):
 * Media seems to be suitably public domain, could certainly be more though if it is available
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * 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)


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


 * thank you very much, that's excellent. McPhail (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)