Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2

GA Reassessment

moving it to community reassessment. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is missing to many references and fails GA criteria. I am keeping it on hold for minimum 7 days, depending on the the progress of improvement. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImmortalWizard Hey there. I'm not an editor of this article but am interested in the GA process generally. Could you be more specific about what references are missing and which criteria is missing? Giving specific guidance is generally more helpful. For instance he's a review I completed today and here's a review which passed today which has an written by an experienced GA writer. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. I have made quite a few GA reviews. Obviously, there is a slight difference between a review and a reassessment. I tend to be really specific and have spot checks, if not, full fact checking.

Here, the specific criteria that fails, which is essentially you asked for I presume, are the following:

Improper prose: Especially in the latter parts of his career, the ones added after the first GA review.
Many missing citations. I marked them in the article.
Use of unreliable sources according to WP:PW/MOS, such as Online World of Wrestling.
Desperately requires an update in the some of the sections.
Content really isn't disputed, but there is some issues with his newly established business career.

These are all the comments I can give. Barkeep49 if it were to be a typical GA review, I would input greater details with active communications with the nominator. However, in this case, if I see any participation by any editors, I will try my best. I hope this was what you were looking for. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImmortalWizard Thanks. I am asking because when it came up and I saw thiis comment if I were intent on improving the article (and I'm admittedly not) I'd have felt unsure where to start. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.