Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well Dunn/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 14 November 2009.

Well Dunn

 * Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all of the criteria. It was nominated once before, but the FAC was closed due to lack of responses (no supports or opposes). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the sourcing issues raised on the first FAC have been cleared up, bringing this back in 7 days is premature. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There were no objections to the sourcing in the first FAC. Ealdgyth asked for explanations of why some sources were reliable, and I provided responses. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But she did not strike them, meaning they still needed review for reliability. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that to be done? The sources she asked about are published by experts in the field and meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. I explained this, and my explanations were ignored. Ealdgyth said that she would let other editors decide for themselves about the reliability; I am confident that, if any reviewers come around this time, they will agree that the sourcing is up to FA standards. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally leave self-published sources for other reviewers to decide for themselves, especially in non-academic or obvious cases. If I'd been utterly convinced, I'd have struck them, but they were close enough that I didn't think they were out of bounds. They should be considered by each reviewer. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt text and images cleared in previous FAC; please advise if they have changed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of uncleared sources carried forward from previous FAC:
 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/pnwttnwa.html
 * The information is primarily gathered from the Wrestling Title Histories book. This one title change is not included in the book, which seems to be an omission. Since this title change is backed up by several other websites, I felt that it was important to include in the interests of accuracy and comprehensiveness. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com (Yes, I saw the above. I'm not convinced. At the very least, I'd rather see reviews of the site that aren't hosted on the site itself.)
 * Per Verifiability: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Graham Cawthon's work is considered so accurate that it is included as a feature in both WrestleView and ), both of which are accepted as reliable sources for wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrestling Title Histories is the only work released by its publisher see here. What makes this reliable?
 * I'd question that site as the "definitive word" on books as the Wrestling Title histories has been published in four editions yet not reflected there.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, industry expert John Molinaro (a regular columnist for the wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer, which is considered one of the best reliable sources for wrestling articles) calls it an "essential resource" and the "authoritative book on the history of wrestling titles".
 * http://www.wrestlecrap.com/oldinductions.html
 * The site is run by RD Reynolds, who is accepted as an industry expert and has published several wrestling-related books (Wrestlecrap:The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling, The Death of WCW, and The Wrestlecrap Book of Lists, all published by ECW Press). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.nwawrestling.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=16&Itemid=33&0da7ea0fa00243950053999b1ce8c78c=720f73dea89a407a4b08b22f7785320c&limitstart=14&0da7ea0fa00243950053999b1ce8c78c=720f73dea89a407a4b08b22f7785320c
 * The site is operated by the National Wrestling Alliance, one of the top two wrestling organizations in the US since 1948. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the information at Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches to establish reliability of these sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Putting aside the sources above for a second, most of the remaining references are either to WWF television programs or are otherwise related to the then-WWF. Is there any possibility for replacement of some of these with non-primary sources? A lot of reviewers here become concerned when they sense that too many primary sources have been used, although I grant that sources for a team from this era are probably difficult to find.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have used non-primary sources wherever possible. Unfortunately, non-primary information about the early/mid 1990s is hard to find for some wrestlers. Because Well Dunn was never really among the top tag teams in the WWF, there was limited information written about them in the magazines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, between the two FACs, it's been 37 days without a single Support or Oppose. The process appears to be broken, so I think it's time for me to come to the realization that FAC is, for all intents and purposes, dead. GAN has worked out a lot better, as it leads to actual feedback rather than stagnant review page after stagnant review page. Feel free to close this whenever you feel like it, as it's clearly a pointless endeavour. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Gary, lets wait on closing. I'm up to it, so I'll give a review and I'll be sure to leave a support or oppose after I'm done.-- Will C  20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Review by WillC
 * Lead
 * Infobox
 * I know it is not a must, but the infomation mentioned in the box I wouldn't mind sourced, because some of it may not be mentioned later and it would be best to have it covered now.-- Will C  06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * "Well Dunn, also known as the Southern Rockers, was a professional wrestling tag team that competed in several promotions in the United States." Wouldn't mind Rockers linked to The Rockers, since I believe that may be a reference in the sentence, and it written as "The Southern Rockers" since that should be the official name. I haven't read it in a while, but WP:THE may have something to do with that.-- Will C  06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "They held championships in Pacific Northwest Wrestling (PNW), the United States Wrestling Association (USWA), the World Wrestling Council (WWC), and Music City Wrestling (MCW)." → "They held championships in the Pacific Northwest Wrestling (PNW), the United States Wrestling Association (USWA), the World Wrestling Council (WWC), and the Music City Wrestling (MCW) promotions." I like to make sure everything is clarified.-- Will C  06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "They are best known, however, for competing in the World Wrestling Federation from 1993 to 1995." → "They are best known for competing in the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) from 1993 to 1995." However seems unneeded here.
 * "In the WWF, Well Dunn faced the promotion's top tag teams and were contenders for the WWF Tag Team Championship." → "In the WWF, Well Dunn faced several of the promotion's tag teams and were contenders for the WWF Tag Team Championship." Can change around if you want, but top seems like an opinion.
 * "They had a feud with The Bushwhackers that lasted for most of Well Dunn's tenure with the company." Seems sloppy, rewrite is needed imo. Something like "Most of their tenure with the company was spent being engaged in a feud with Luke Williams and Butch Miller of The Bushwhackers tandem."
 * "During this reunion, Doll attacked King and the team disbanded permanently." → "During this reunion, Doll attacked Smith and the team disbanded permanently." Best to keep consistent.-- Will C  06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * History
 * Early years
 * Reunion
 * WWF (1993)
 * WWF (1994)
 * WWF (1995)
 * Split
 * In wrestling
 * Championships and accomplishments
 * References
 * External links
 * Comment: In the first sentence, give your reader and approximate date and link the country. Amandajm (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.