Jump to content

Talk:Jonathon Sharkey/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Jonathon Sharkey

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonathon The Impaler (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 3 September 2011 (→‎Second Opinion: I am pointing out, the page needs to be worked on better and be more bias *,...,*). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing


Reviewer: SOXROX (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comment

I'm far from done, but one immediate note:

The references. My, oh my, the references. It has three dead links, one archived page that does not have any benefit and is basically a dead link, and another that is in Romanian, so you can't verify that it connects to the sentence in the article. If the refernces aren't improved, I'm afraid this article would definitely fail. SOXROX (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

I'll put in the final grades later. SOXROX (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

This section will list things to improve in the article.

1- Well written?

  • In the Background section, for some reason you have brackets around Vlad Dracul's name.

 Done SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it really necessary to say that he announced his gubernatorial campaign in Minnesota on Friday the 13th?
    • Well, Friday the 13th is commonly associated with bad luck among the superstitious, and it seems obvious to me that Sharkey intentionally picked that date to reinforce his "scary" persona. As such it's more important than if he'd chosen, say, Sunday the 21st. Still, if you feel like it should be removed, I'll remove it. Difluoroethene (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its ok then.  Done SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • We need more background on his personal life. He has a wife in April 2006 (Julie Crawford), and then another one (Spree) when he was 42. He was 42 in 2006, so I definitely have a question there.
      • Look up Paige Brewer. There was a controversy about it. He apparently ran off with her- a 16 year old girl, to "emancipate' her from her mother.
  • At the beginning, he is mentioned as being a professional wrestler. Well, there is nothing about him being a wrestler in the rest of the article other than the photo!

 Done SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2- Factually accurate and verifiable?

  • This is the big one. ACTIVE REFERENCES! Three dead links, one useless archive, and another one in Romanian. That is 5/26 useless links, or 19%. Not good.

Romanian link Done, but the wayback machine doesn't go anywhere. Maybe its restricted on my computer but that wouldn't make sense. SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, they need to be RELIABLE! The Imdb link, I'm sorry, is not beneficial in any way. It might have even been self made.
    • That's an external link, not used as a reference at any point. Still, I'll remove it if you feel it shouldn't be there. Self-made isn't necessarily a bad thing for EL's, since many articles like to the official website of the subject of the article.
  • Unsourced material is rampant. The site that shows Sharkey's party is not registered in the UK is dead. The dead link to the review of Sharkey's film leaves the possibly self created Imdb page as the only usable source for his filmography, making it look like a dubious claim. The first sentence in Background is unreferenced for users who don't speak Romanian because, well, these particular users don't speak Romanian! While the archived page doesn't affect anything because his Minnesota run is referenced elsewhere, but wait, no, the ABC link is dead too! The Documentary section is completely unsourced. The sentence about his party's beliefs is too (Second paragraph under VWP). The fact that he is a professional wrestler (at the beginning) is unverified. And the quote under Beliefs and Vampirism should also be referenced.
    • The Beliefs and Vampirism quote is already referenced. The Documentary section was not added by me, but by someone else; I've removed it. Regarding Romanian and archived links, please see my comment above about such things. If you can access the Wayback Machine (I can't, because the server I'm currently using blocks it), fixing the dead links should be easy as pie. Difluoroethene (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, once again, I'm not sure how the wayback machine works, so... SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Too summarize, the references stink. Its as simple as that.

3- Broad in its coverage?

  • Not enough background and personal life. Again, the reference for the first sentence in background is unreadable for many.
    • Relatively little has been written in reliable sources about these topics (since most coverage focuses on his presidential campaigns and arrests, and to a lesser extent his wrestling. Still, I was able to dig up some information about his children and his wrestling career, which I've added. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I've already said, the Documentary section is unreferenced.

I made those two critiques already, so therefore the article's broadness isn't too bad, actually. But it can stil use work. More background is needed.

 Done, removed. SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately, while Sharkey has received a fair amount of coverage, much of the coverage is spotty, since no comprehensive biographies of him (that I'm aware of) have been published. Most of what has been written about him focuses on individual incidents (such as his arrests, his presidential runs and his films). So, there may be a limit to how broad this article could eventually be, due to the fact that we are limited to only using information contained in reliable sources. Difluoroethene (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thats what really handicaps this GA nom! SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4- Neutral?

Reading this article, I feel like you and others are basing the article too much on his claims. Sharkey has basically written the article himself, because he is telling everyone about himself on talk pages. For instance, editors gave in to his complaints when he claimed that he is a Luciferian and not a Satanist. Also, there is no mention of his professional wrestling career. Just saying that in the first sentence without backing it up later makes it seem totally false. This is unverified. Many of his claims are unverified. Some could even be interpreted as sarcasm.

To summarize, while you tried your best to be unbiased, it is still based too much on his claims from talk pages.

His Luciferianism is verified by this source; he also follows the goddess Hecate. I will be updating mentions of his religion accordingly. I also added a section on his wrestling career.Difluoroethene (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5- Stable?

Ever since Sharkey stopped editing the article, it has been stable. A few vandalism attempts, but other than that, the article is fine there.

6-Appropriately illustrated?

  • The first picture at the top is fine. It relevant and passes he fair use policy.
  • The second one of him wrestling does as well. However, as I've said, there is barely anything about him wrestling. It still is relevant to the article though.

 Done SOXROX (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


So, thats my analysis. Before I actually grade it, I would really appreciate if you came and cooperated by making some changes. SOXROX (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion

I think we need a second opinion. A few things need to be resolved, one being the wayback machine which the nominator can't access and I can't figure out. :) But other than that, I want another opinion on whether some the article fallacies in sourcing and the sources' credibility should fail the article. Any other comments would be very much appreciated. SOXROX (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think you still need to get your facts straight. If you read the last line of the first paragraph about me supposedly brain washing Paige, you will see you are talking about it in the last paragraph. I'm no English writing major, but, you need to write that better.

In a links you have about the Paige incident, Hart Van Denburg addresses that I did contact not only Jeb Bush, but, the MN Division of Family Services for them to help Paige. Why is this incident even on my page, when I wasn't charged with any wrong doing?

You say the page is suppose to be bias. Well, putting stuff in there that makes me look bad, when I did nothing wrong, is NOT bias. It's PREJUDICE!

You have me listed as a Perennial candidate. Yet, Ralph Nader has ran more times than me. I don't see you calling him a Perennial candidate. Another act of PREJUDICE!

I emailed Saturn 2 newspapers out of Jersey. One from Jan 1988 when I turned pro as a boxer (it had my amateur boxing record listed) and an article for 1 Jun 1991 when I wrestled Ivan Koloff in a main event match. Yet, I see no mentioning of this. The articles are actually micro filmed. Someone going to say these articles are not real?

On IMDb, they have listed movie I have done and that are available on Amazon. Why are they not mentioned?

On 9 Sept 11, we go into principle filming of the feature film - The Comeback Fighter. We are having a media event on 10 Sept 11. Who do I send the newspaper article links too?

On a dating scale, I am dating 19 year old Russian actress Rachel Allen. We are happily living together. Her IMDb page will be out soon I was told. She has a fan page on FB.

As far as my religious beliefs, on my left bicep, I have a tattoo of the Triple Moon. A sign of the Goddess Hecate.

Also, why is there no mention that I recorded a CD of Elvis Love Songs. www.myspace.com/jonathonquottheimpalerquot In the TCF short, I did the soundtrack. This is not fair. You need to get a SECOND and if need be, a THIRD opinion on my page.

May everyone have a blessed weekend. Jonathon The Impaler 13:01, 3 Sept 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathon_Sharkey/GA1&oldid=448250249"