User:Theophilus75/adams discussion

Brian Adams Quick Fail
I reviewed The Undertaker review you sited, and other than expanding the lead and including footnotes in the lead, to sources that are already present, I don't see how the two compare at all. I was wondering if you could help me understand what needs to be done to improve this article and why it was a quick fail? I looked through the quick fail criteria and the article seems to pass all 5 of the quick fail points. It passes WP:V and has both primary and secondary sources. It seems to me to pass WP:NPOV having no POV/peacock language issues. It has no cleanup tags, it has not been a source of edit wars and the image in it does meet Wikipedia's fair us policy. I would understand if there was some problems with the article that need to be fixed, but I'm having trouble understanding why a quick fail. Since you reviewed the article, if you could help me understand what needs to be done to make this article better so it would pass GA review I would appreciate your help! This is the first wrestler bio I have worked extensively on, I'd like to work on others (they desperately need it), but I'd like to figure out how to get this one done well first. Thanks for your time!!! - Theophilus75 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and for not getting upset, the sources are still mostly primary sources, such as WWE.com. Also, IMDb,com is not a reliable source as their articles are written by volunteers (if you have time see here, here, and here). You can list it at WP:GA/R or you can just re-list it at WP:GAC and I'll step aside and someone else can review it. There is still the same number of articles in line, so you won't lose your place. Cheers. Quadzilla99 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. You said the majority of the sources are primary sources, but I don't believe that is so.  The main source cited is a secondary website.  WWE.com and IMDb.com (while sited a few times) were used to support information already found in secondary locations; and even if they were used as the only source for some info, that is acceptable under all Wikipedia Policies as long as the info is not challenged, not likely to be challenged or is the main source of info.  There was a non-internet based source used for multiple citations in the article as well as news articles from secondary news sites that meet WP:RS.  I know that I can appeal your decision or resubmit the article, but that doesn't answer my questions to you; what needs to be done to improve this article and why it was a quick fail?  I'd rather know exactly what I'm missing.  I don't see how it could be quick failed, but you did, so something must be alarmingly obvious to you, and as such I would appreciate your help in locating it so I can fix it. - Theophilus75 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WWE.com is not an independent source as they treat the events from an in-universe perspective and they're the promoters of the event. It's not a scholarly independent source. It's like citing a company's website to write about them, ideally if you were writing about a company for example should cite independent publications like The New York Times or scholarly books on the event. Using them sparingly to descibe what happened is fine, but there should be more independent analysis. As another example if you were writing about a person you wouldn't use their autobiography except sparingly, to quote them or their views, because you would essentially be telling the story in their own words. If wrestling were real a lot of this would be different and you could use the company's website (like you can for the NBA or the NFL to describe events) but you should be saying: "they fought due to a contract x signed which stated..." basically you should be describing why things happened using more behind the scenes information. For instance, instead of saying "x punched y because y punched x's girlfriend." You should say, "McMahon felt x had the charisma to be a champion and so he scripted in scenarios which portrayed him as the hero, while y, who McMahon felt was only suited to be a villain due to his lack of charisma, was scripted to be x's foil and often did things such as punch women, steal, and lie. Y often complained to McMahon about the limitations he imposed on his character. Y felt he could be a charismatic champion, and ten minutes before his bout with x, y nearly refused to go on stage because he was scripted to lose." I'm not saying the whole article should be like this but it should contain more sources that explain why things happened. Unfortunately, these do not exist except is some rare cases. I looked over a couple of wrestling articles today and Montreal screwjob is a decent example, it's not great but a lot of it is written ina correct perspective. Quadzilla99 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm even more confused now, your comments about how I should use WWE.com as a source is EXACTLY how I used it!?!? The only thing I used them for is to verify match results after finding them at another source.  Now I understand how you think the article could be better, but not having what you speak of (behind the scenes info) is not criteria for a quick fail...I'm not sure it's criteria for a GA fail at all.  What you would like to see in the article is what I believe would help bring the article from GA status to FA status.  So, I know what you think would improve the article, but I'm still trying to figure out what part of the quick fail criteria it failed so I can fix it. - Theophilus75 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with it put it up for review or just re-list it. Thanks. Quadzilla99 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll guess I'll have to relist it; but that doesn't tell me why you quick failed the article. Part of the reason for having others evaluate articles you write is because they often see things you don't see.  I'm assuming (good faith) that you saw something that justified the quick fail, just cause I don't see it doesn't mean it is not there; but your not telling me why you quick failed it doesn't give me a chance to fix the problem that I assume you saw.  But alas, I guess I move on... - Theophilus75 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, the entire article presents his fictional career as a wrestler as a biography, (see WP:WAF). There's no information about his early life, personal life, contracts, motivations behind why he did anything, girlfriends, wives (is he married?), education, where he lived. Basically he was born, he started wrestling, then he stopped wrestling. You're presenting the fictional life of a wrestler as a biography, and the wrestling career is written almost entirely largely from an in-universe perspective and your sources are deficient. Quadzilla99 23:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So am I to understand that you had no reason to quick fail the article based on the quick fail criteria? WP:WAF is not a policy it is a guideline, and is not a reason to quick fail an article.  Concensus among those involved in writing the pro-wrestlers bios, and those that have objectively reviewed them, is to write them in the fashion similar to what I have (which the guidelines in WP:WAF seem to find acceptable after my reading through them yet again).  I don't see how my sources can be deficient since they meet WP:RS (a policy)...not to mention the fact that you seem to think, despite my stating otherwise more than once, that WWE.com is my major source (shoot...it had VERY LITTLE information).  I've tried to assume good faith, but after asking at least 4 times what part of the quick fail criteria the article failed without getting even a remote answer, I must now assume that the article didn't fail any parts of the quick fail criteria.  Really, I do need to let this go before I actually start to get upset...but if you are going to review an article please do so correctly and objectively...it really isn't fair to those people are putting their time into actually trying to improve articles...especially articles that need it as bad as the pro-wrestling ones. - Theophilus75 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm putting it on GA review now, address your concerns there. Thanks. Quadzilla99 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)