Talk:Blond Bombers/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting Review. Jezhotwells (talk)Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The subheadings below relate to the Good Article criteria at WP:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article and I shall place comments as I proceed.

Writing style

I find the article to be mostly well written, I made some minor edits to improve the readability. Please check to make sure that I entered no errors.

Larry Latham and Wayne Farris : Can you cite a date when they were paired? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I find the article well referenced, with the exception of ref #16 <http://www.kappapublishing.com/wrestling/pages/wrestlingframe.html> which was dead when examined. I have placed a tag. I was unable to establish how theses references met the standards of WP:RS, but in the context of a sport/entertainment not well covered in mainstream media, I judge them to be acceptable. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Broad coverage

I have doubts about broad coverage. This link for instance [1] appears to reference other teams known variously as Blond or Blonde Bombers. In this link [2] the term is used to describe the Australian Cricket team. In this link [3] it appears to be a nickname for baseball players. Have you considered moving the article to Blond Bombers (Pro Wrestling) or a similar name?

I also feel that an external links section might be a good idea, if suitable links not previously used can be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I hame happy that this artcile conforms to a Neutral Point of View Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability

The article is stable with the majority of edits by the creator and nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Compliance with image use policy

No images are used in this article. Have you tried to source some acceptable, i.e. free license images? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Given the notability of the subject, I think this article should meet the good article criteria if the few points mentioned above are addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Although I was sure I had searched everywhere for more teams known as the Blond/Blonde Bombers. The link you provided is quite right. Stan Lane and Bryan St. John apparently also used the name. They were only together for a little over a year, but it's definitely still worth making a section for them, and I have some good sources available. I have replaced the dead link (the company seems to have moved its information to a different domain name but kept it all intact). I'll try to get these issues resolved over the weekend. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a section about Lane and St. John (which was quite enjoyable, as I previously only knew of Stan Lane's other three tag teams). I added as much information as I could find about the date of Latham and Farris. I replaced the dead link and added some external links. As for the name, it has never been policy to add a quantifier such as "(professional wrestling)" unless there is an existing article about a different subject that shares the name. I don't think it's necessary to add one now, but I'm not opposed to it down the road if articles are written about Blond Bombers from other sports. As for images, I've looked for free use images, but they don't seem to exist for any of these wrestlers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well done for your hard work. I am prepared to pass the article as all concerns have been addressed.Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Not applicable - no images at present

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: