Talk:Kenny Dykstra/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly is this article at this particular title? It's a stage name he used only for a few months, while he has also used his real name as a stage name. Shouldn't preference be given to his real name, especially since it's probably unlikely that he goes back to this stage name in the future? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The project goes by the common name preference. There's been numerous discussions about the title of the article go by the common name bit. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And how did you determine that this is the subject's most common name? Wouldn't Kenny be more common, considering he appeared on national television for longer, and won a major championship under that name? I'm certainly not suggesting you move the article there, but I still wonder why the real name wouldn't be favored considering it has also been a stage name for him. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how many Kenny's there are here? Would the article be named "Kenny (wrestler)"? Anyways, here's the consensus about moving the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I said I don't suggest moving the article to Kenny, but I would suggest you have that discussion again. By the date stamps, it looks like that discussion was had when he was still active under this name (beyond the simple fact that the discussion took place a year and a half ago). Unless he returns to WWE (which I suppose is possible, but there's no reason to expect it), he won't be re-using this name. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bring it up, and see where it leads. Sorry if I "snapped", I was going back and forth with different articles yesterday. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Generally good. Some nitpicks:

   • During his time in OVW, he captured the Television Championship once Is captured usual wrestling jargon? Why not just "won?"

   I don't think so, but replaced. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   • He was later trained by professional wrestler and trainer Killer Kowalski Passive voice. The same construction occurs in the lead; I'd leave it there, since Doane should be the subject of the sentence in the lead, but for here I'd suggest Professional wrestler and trainer Killer Kowalski was Doane's trainer (or something else, to work through the repetition of "trainer")

   Done.

   • after they were defeated in a five-on-three match by Flair and DX Another passive construction; easy to work through

   How bout ---> "The group was 'killed off' on the November 27 Raw after losing a five-on-three match against Flair and DX"?

   Killed off sounds a little cutesy-poo. I'd just go with "disbanded." Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   • In order to join, he was told to "prove himself" first. What's the significance of the quotes? Is this a quote attributed to someone?

   Removed quotes.

   • During this time, Doane debuted new attire, new theme music, and a new name; Kenny Dykstra, which was an homage to baseball player Lenny Dykstra. I think it's okay that a sentence describing what Ken Doane did is in the same part of the article as words describing what Kenny or Kenny Dykstra do, but I'd suggest moving this sentence to the beginning of the article, so you go out-of-universe to (relatively speaking) back to in. You can easily tie it to the in-storyline details doing it that way. It would be better than in-,out-of,in-universe sentences in succession.

   I think I got this.

   • On November 10, 2008, WWE announced Dykstra had been released from his contract. Not Dykstra, but Doane who was under the contract

   Done.

   B. MOS compliance: A true nitpick:

   • Try to avoid back-to-back wikilinks like SmackDown brands and sophomoric pranks. These make it look SmackDown brands and sophomoric pranks are the articles being linked, which is potentially misleading. If there's absolutely no way around it, then so be it, but try to work through it.

   Well, "SmackDown" and "brand" don't link to the same thing. I understand "pratical jokes", but the rest would be hard to do.

   The idea behind it is a user might click on "brands" and think they're going to the WWE SmackDown article. Sure, all they have to do is click back and click the right link, but it's better to save them the trouble, whenever possible. If both terms reasonably should be linked, and there's no other logical place to link them, then go ahead. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • A few problems with the citations. Some of them list the Work as the Publisher. The Work is what is being published, so for citations 46 and 48, the Publisher is not Pro Wrestling Torch – that is the work. The publisher, as is apparent from the website, is TDH Communications Inc. The Rocky Mountain News is correctly given as the work for citation 36, but there's no publisher present (cursory research shows it would be E. W. Scripps Company). WrestleView, for citations 22, 25, 26, and 35, does not seem to list a publisher, and their "about us" link, which is usually one place where this is found, claims massive updates will be coming in 2009. Further, the statement All pictures and media files are copyrighted by their respective owners. seems to imply that they use materials for which they do not own the copyright, which is troubling. I really don't know if this website passes WP:RS. Citations 10 and 52 emanate from 100megsfree4.com and states that This is a hobby site and used for wrestling informational purposes only. That's not WP:RS. Citation 50, which unfortunately is used three four times, is a dead link, redirecting back to headlineplanet.com (and this citation would also need its publisher, eNewsZone Media Network). The publisher/work distinction is correctly given in citations to SLAM! Sports.

   WrestleView has been proven as a reliable source, trust me when I tell you. I've removed "100megsfree4" is not a reliable source, so been removed. I've been told, to have a consistency, if you are going to have both the publisher and work, then have them for all of them. If not, then keep the work. Here's my proof. Headline Planet has been removed.

   Okay, well, here's my proof that including the publisher is necessary. What's wrong with including both for all of them, anyway? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   And have you anything other than your word to attest to the reliability of WrestleView? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   Have been replaced. It's just too much work to add the publisher and work. But if you want me to, I'll add it.

   Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Mostly okay, a few problems as described above.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • During his time in OVW, he captured the Television Championship once. You give the TV championship a passing mention in a single sentence in the section describing his WWE years, which came later. There is a period from 2004-2006 that is not described in this article. If that period in his career is not noteworthy, why is it mentioned in the lead?

   Has been added. I don't know why it wasn't mentioned there.

   Hmm, not exactly what I had in mind. For one, a redundancy is created While at OVW, he won the Television Championship once. [edit] World Wrestling Entertainment (2006–2008) [edit] Raw (2006–2007) Main article: Spirit Squad After two years in OVW, where he won the Television Championship,[10] and for another, this period in his career isn't really described in detail that having it mentioned in the lead would suggest it merits. You don't need pages of content for this, but as a second paragraph under "Early career," I think you could add when he first started working for OVW, what his on-screen persona was, whom he defeated to win the Television Championship (and when), to whom he lost the Television Championship (and when), and when he stopped working for them. I imagine much of that information is already present in the sources used in the article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   Will work on this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   You might be making this harder than you need to. If this period of Doane's career isn't of any particular significance, then just don't mention it in the lead. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

   I think I got it. I've been reading and there isn't much of what his "on-screen persona" was. Added couple of bits. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

   • When did Doane and Mickie James break up? then-fiancée and During his engagement with James suggest that they have broken up, but it's never explicitly said. Was there any resolution to the James Wilson incident, anyway?

   It's not notable when they called off the engagement. I also don't know if the incident was the cause for their break-up.

   Why not? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   We don't know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: All images are free and on commons.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text: Alt text is missing. It's not technically required for GA, so I won't fail the article if it isn't added, but I strongly suggest it be added. The captions could also show a little more imagination. Why no caption in the lead image? I won't ask for an edit to an infobox if that's what would be required for it to be there, but that image could use a caption just like the rest of them.

   Added caption.

   Better, but can the file caption for File:Ken Doane.jpg mention the promotion for which he's appearing and if not the exact date, at least the month? Clearly, all the pictures are from the same match, so they don't all need this info. The first identifies Doane – that's great, and that's all the caption needs to do. The two below are used to illustrate his wrestling maneuvers – no real need for anything further there, either. And I guess that's a no on the alt text? Pity. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

   It doesn't say what promotion he's in, so I just said "Doane at a wrestling promotion in February 2010". I'm horrible at alt text, it's very difficult for me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: This article is generally good, but some work is needed. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Awful lot of external links. Are they all really necessary? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed one link, though the rest seem notable to have. IDK, that's not my "section", or whatever. Anyways, thanks for the review, I appreciate it. I hoped I addressed your concerns, if not, I'll try to continue working on that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I will now pass the article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to review this article. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)