Talk:Harvey Wippleman/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Disclaimer: I am indeed a big wrestling fan and a frequent editor of professional wrestling articles but the only edits I've ever made to this article is upgrading three "questionable" sources to three reliable ones, nothing else. I am not a member of the Pro Wrestling project either and will review this without bias towards the subject. If you think this is a problem say so and I will withdraw stop reviewing this article. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this and I'm forced to place it on hold right now, it just does not read like a "Good Article" at the moment.

Well-written

Part of being "well-written" is to avoid wrestling jargon and being too "In universe" - in other words if it presents wrestling as real it's not "well written", I see very few attempts at "un-kayfabing" the article.
Lead is too short
Unlinked: Continental Wrestling Federation,
- Done.
You list Sid as "Sid Eudy", he's the only wrestler listed by his real name - inconsistent.
it's short mainly unrelated sentences grouped together, it's like "I can find sources for A, D and F let's forget B, C & E", it has no flow to it at all. This needs some work IMO, I would have requested a Peer Review before putting this up for GA.
Info box - the order of his ring names seem to be arbitrary, they're not chronologically up or down that's for sure, they need to be.
- Chronological now.

Factually accurate and verifiable

Reference 1 - very used, the top source on the page - It's a bit of a problem that a big part of the sources are from the subject itself, it's Lauer's book that's cited not reliable 3rd party coverage.
Reference 2 - Printed sources need chapter & page
Reference 10 - In a word "no", fan page isn't a reliable source for anything and should be removed
10 out of 20 sources are from the WWE, again hardly "3rd party" sources as it's "WWE writing about WWE"

Broad in coverage

This is very sporadic in coverage, "broad in coverage" cannot even be said to apply to his wrestling career. I get the following timeline on his wrestling career.

1979 trained
1986-1989 - self-proclaimed "most prominent manager"
Early 1990s - introduced Bully Busick
1992, 1993 - managed
1995 - managed Gonzales & Hughes, managed Faye but that's not even covered fully.
2000 - the whole Hervina deal

I see several gaps there that are just unaddressed leaving the reader to wonder if what the heck is up. Also the fact that he managed Sid when he turned heel and was part of the angle with Hogan was totally ignored.

Neutral

With so many sources coming from Lauer himself of WWE on WWE it walks a fine balance on neutrality, at least the text is mainly neutral, just a problem with it being Lauer calling himself the "most prominent villanous manager"

Stable

Looks stable to me.

Illustrated (Optional)

Good

I'll be happy to answer questions or anything else along the way. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreement with Nikki I'm going to go ahead and fail the article now, so that there is no timepressure on improvements. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]