Jump to content

Talk:Rush (wrestler)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 23 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleRush (wrestler) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 11, 2019Good article nomineeListed
May 6, 2020Featured topic candidatePromoted
February 15, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rush (wrestler)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Red XN
  • It contains copyright infringements - CopyVio check comes up clean
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - No tags in article
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No notice of edit warring.

First impressions

[edit]

I will go into more detail later, however, on first inspection, here's what I see:

I've moved this to the bottom of the prose. Seems a better fit Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't seem too harsh, and I'll go into the main prose when I have time. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]
Indeed. I'm pretty sure that's how it works - Fine if proven wrong. You do also use it with {{técnico ("Face", or those that portray the good guys}}, considering "face" is a descriptive term, and not a proper noun regardless. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can use United States, just fine. See MOS:NOTUSA for reasonings. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

career

[edit]

Professional wrestling persona

[edit]

Notes & References

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Personally, I'm not really sure how the roster of this promotion, and the associated article are particularly notable, but that's not a topic for this GA. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article placed on hold. Biggest issues for me are the paragraph layout (4-5 sentences is a paragraph, generally), and some of the wording above. Gramatically, when doing a translation, in brackets, it should still be in lower case. I'll keep this open for a while for the user to update the article/respond. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski - I think I have addressed all your concerns? MPJ-DK (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've made a few changes myself to the article, as clear typo in lead, and wikilinking face and heel in the persona section, as well as move the personal life below this section. I think it fits GA standard now. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]