Talk:Tony Parisi (wrestler)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose issues:
 * In the first paragraph of "Career" "promotion" is being used in a jargon-y way. A link to professional wrestling promotion would be in order, as well as perhaps a little context in the article.
 * Same paragraph: Not sure what you are saying here (posible typo?): "Throughout his career, Pugliese formed tag many tag teams in various promotions…"
 * Next paragraph: "Although Pugliese wrestled in Ontario throughout his career ..." seems to imply he only wrestled in Ontario, then proceeds to tell us other places he wrestled. Depending on the sense meant, maybe "… Pugliese often wrestled in Ontario …" or "… Pugliese primarily wrestled in Ontario …" would work better.
 * In the section "Return to the World Wide Wrestling Federation": "When the promotion (which had since be renamed the World Wrestling Federation) decided to …". Should that be "… had since been named…"?
 * In the section "Montreal's Lutte Internationale": Unless the Quebec affiliation is particularly notable (which is not evident from the section), just make the phrase "Montreal-based Lutte Internationale". Montreal is sufficiently notable to stand on its own without the need for the province, and this will avoid the comma/hyphen oddity.
 * Any indication how Joseph Dorgan is related?
 * MOS issue:
 * Because cite web and cite book have been modified to have unlinked dates, the retrieval dates are all in the ISO style format, which is inconsistent with the "Month day, year" style used throughout the prose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I won't keep it from passing solely because there are no images, but the article could certainly could benefit from an image of Pugliese. A quick google image search shows there are several that could be used under Fair Use (especially since he is no longer living).
 * The image adds a great deal. Licensing, etc., all check out fine.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Speaking as someone who does not follow professional wrestling or know that much about it, I think this is a well-written article with appropriate links for most of the wrestling-specific terms. I have a few prose issues and one MOS issue that I'd like to see resolved before passing it, so I'm lacing the nomination on hold for now. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'm out of town right now, but I'll get to these points a little later today. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I got most of this fixed up. Thanks for catching the typos. I don't have a reliable source that discusses how Dorgan is related. Dorgan's article says that Pugliese is his great uncle, but there is no reference given. I found an article in which Dorgan stated that his uncle was a professional wrestler, but it would be synthesis to say that this is sufficient evidence to make the claim. As for the dates in the references, I've never heard of that concern before. All of the GAs that I have written have used month,day,year in the prose and (now unformatted) ISO dates in the references. Do you consider this serious enough that I should change the access dates in all of the references? Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't keep it from passing because of the reference dates, but the inconsistent date formats would be a concern if you were to pursue FAC, for example. (There are partially implemented efforts to have all of the family templates automatically convert the ISO-style dates into "day-month-year" format which would still leave these in an inconsistent format.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Speaking as someone who does not follow professional wrestling or know that much about it, I think this is a well-written article with appropriate links for most of the wrestling-specific terms. I have a few prose issues and one MOS issue that I'd like to see resolved before passing it, so I'm lacing the nomination on hold for now. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'm out of town right now, but I'll get to these points a little later today. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I got most of this fixed up. Thanks for catching the typos. I don't have a reliable source that discusses how Dorgan is related. Dorgan's article says that Pugliese is his great uncle, but there is no reference given. I found an article in which Dorgan stated that his uncle was a professional wrestler, but it would be synthesis to say that this is sufficient evidence to make the claim. As for the dates in the references, I've never heard of that concern before. All of the GAs that I have written have used month,day,year in the prose and (now unformatted) ISO dates in the references. Do you consider this serious enough that I should change the access dates in all of the references? Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't keep it from passing because of the reference dates, but the inconsistent date formats would be a concern if you were to pursue FAC, for example. (There are partially implemented efforts to have all of the family templates automatically convert the ISO-style dates into "day-month-year" format which would still leave these in an inconsistent format.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)