Talk:Sheamus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 16:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Disclaimer: I am a WP:WIKICUP participant, as is the nominator. Wugapodes (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria 
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now. When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.
 * 1) "put him good stead for the one-day tournament" What does this mean?
 * ✅Done. Reworded the sentence. Ikhtiar H (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The article says he was on "Royal Pains" in 2014 but gives no citation and is not covered in the prose of the "Other Media" section. This should be fixed.
 * ✅Done. Fixed. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) In the signature moves subsection, "Irish Curse" has no citation.
 * ✅Done. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) For the moves, the wikilink style should be consistent. Either the typical move should be given and linked in parentheses (preferred) or piped, but mixing the two is confusing.
 * Not Done. Wrestlers may use different moves one after another as a mixture. Evidence can be shown from the moves of John Cena and CM Punk. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "Mr. Money in the Bank" has no citation and should, considering the other ones do.
 * ✅Done. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Early life section is a little choppy. IF you're going to go for FA I would recommend revising it so it flows better.
 * Golfball.jpg. It will be worked later. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You may want to think about bundling citations like those at the end of this sentence: "This victory was part of a winning streak..."
 * Golfball.jpg. It will be worked later.


 * A number of citations are only a title and URL. This can be a problem for verification if the links stop working. An author and/or publisher should be included as well as access dates and publication dates.
 * Golfball.jpg. It will be worked later.


 * The number and quality of images gives me pause. There are a lot, and some aren't of the best quality. I would recommend rethinking which ones really help contribute to conveying information and which are just decoration.
 * [[file:Plutchik-wheel.svg|20px]]. To me, the wrestling moves images are the most superlative ironically. But they can be kept. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Results
On Hold for 7 days. A remarkably well done article. It;s very close to GA quality, and those few fixes I numbered above will get it there. Looking forward to the changes, and if you have questions or comments, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All done! You can finalize the review. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Listed A well written article! I still think that the linking for the moves should be more consistent but it's clearly the standard, so I won't have my personal taste hold up the review. Keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)