Talk:Don Kent (wrestler)

Copyediting question

I'm confused by the sentence: "Kent worked as a Veterans Administration Medical Center..." Should that be "at a Veterans..."? GaryColemanFan 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Review

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for GA candidacy. The good news is that so far it passes the quick fail criteria, so a full review is forthcoming. Check back in a day or two. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This is a well written article, but I simply must fail it for the lack of sources. Many things should be sourced with citations. For example, the sentence about the Red Sox in the early career section should be sourced. This article is written well enough, but still needs more sources to reach GA level. Also, the picture in the infobox really doesn't belong in the article, considering the said person is not even in there. Feel free to re-nominate this article when all the requirements above have been met. Any questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. FamicomJL (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a mistake, everything in the article is sourced, sometimes the source appears at the end of a number of statements because it covers it all and there'd be no point in listing the same source after 5 consecutive sentences. Picture will be removed, I agree it's not of Kent it doesn't belong there. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have made some improvements in attempt to help this article towards GA status. See the history page for a brief description of changes. Truthanado (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet The Manual of style states that an article section should have at least 80 words of hard statistics or 250 words of "soft" knowledge. Smaller areas like the "Death" and "In Wrestling" sections need to be either merged or removed entirely.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass (barely) The sources of the article are formatted properly, but it is my opinion that there aren't enough of them. Though there is no requirement for the number of sources needed on a GA article, this article appears to rely heavily on two primary sources. I would strongly recommend you find some more sources, virtually every detail on the article should be cited for good measure.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass It seems broad enough.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass no problem there.

5. It is stable:

   Not Yet once the improvements are made this will not be a problem.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Not Yet The lack of images is certainly a hit to the Article, I would strongly recommend getting at least one image pretaining to the subject matter. Also, the "Managers" and "Championships and Accomplishments" sections need to be put into table format.

7. Overall:

   On Hold until above issues are resolved. -Ed! (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, a few comments

1. The "In wrestling" section conforms to the pro wrestling project's "Manual of Style" for that section so I'm reluctant to change that but I can see a case for the "Death" section to either be expanded or merged with the previous one.
2. Every detail is sourced, when there is a longer passage of text that has a source at the end it's all the same source and I didn't want to repeat [5], [5], [5] you know? Is there a better way to source it? I will look into more sources but he's got some excellent written sources on him already but I got no problem looking for more if need be.

• • Oh by the way I'm hoping you don't think that the two books are "Primary sources" (as opposed to secondary sources) on Don Kent but that they're the primary sources, as in the main sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

1. It's stable - not subject to editwarring or constant revisions, yes it'll be edited a bit but that's normal.
2. Pictures - yes that's a sore spot, I had 2 pictures at one point - one of Kent and one of the KAngaroos but they were both "fair use" since they're of deceased people with no hope of any other kind of picture, but they were deleted, I've yet to crack the code to get a "fair use" image to stay on an article. Any advice??
3. "Managers" and "Championships and accomplishments" conform to the Pro Wrestling project manual of style, plenty of other GA & FA's have passed with this style, it'd be wrong to deviate from that.

Thank you for putting in the time and effort, I will definitly try to get more sources and have another crack at a "fair use" image. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass the issues were dealt with.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass yeah, I meant "primary" as in it has two "main" sources. But they seem good enough.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass

5. It is stable:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass well, the table counts as an illustration. I would suggest getting any amateur shots you could find, I don't know why they would not allow an image here on fair use but I guess there's nothing you can do.

7. Overall:

   Pass sorry about that delay, well done. -Ed! (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)