Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jack Swagger/1

Jack Swagger

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep per improvements made and no problems outstanding. Geometry guy 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late starting this page up. I just figured out what someone was saying to me when he said start up GAR. I knew what to do on the review when I did it, but when I was going back and forth to the Good Article page, the good article symbols that would say if it passed or failed on the review thing wouldn't show up. Then when I went to hit cancel at the bottom of the sandbox article and to try to start over again, I accidentally hit accept changes button and I couldn't change it back for some reason.--Nascarking (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you're nominating this article for GAR? You have provided no reason anywhere that I can see – you didn't respond to my post on your talk page and you haven't explained here. Why do you feel that this article doesn't meet the criteria? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why the article was passed without a review in the first place. It probably would have been better to just relist it, but since it's at GAR, here are my thoughts:

Lead:

• Paragraph 2: a wikilink for "pins"
  • Linked.
• Final sentence: comma after "taping"
  • Added.

Amateur wrestling career:

• First sentence is identical to a sentence in the lead. Different phrasing would be nice.
  • Reworded lead sentence.

Developmental territories (2006–2008):

• comma after "on the line"
  • Added.
• comma after "August 18, 2008"
  • Added.
• was he wrestling under his real name at this point?
  • Yes. I've added this.

ECW and Raw:

• wikilink "ring name"
  • Linked.
• "He quickly established himself as a heel (villainous character) by quickly starting a feud" - too many "quickly"s
  • Changed one.
• it discusses his undefeated streak here, but the previous section said that he had a streak and then lost a few matches. Is this a new streak?
  • Yep, he had an undefeated streak in ECW at this point. I've clarified.

World Heavyweight Champion:

• "Following his championship win, Swagger debuted a more serious countenance in contrast to his previous persona, where he was known for doing pushups and beating his chest during his ring entrance." - The phrasing is a little unclear as to whether this more serious attitude included pushups and such, or whether the new attitude was more serious than the pushup attitude.
  • Reworded - hope it's more clear now.

A couple of the unclear parts should be clarified, but I don't see any problems with GA criteria outside of that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Gary. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to reply after the changes. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification request. What does "most pins at 30" mean? Thanks, Geometry guy 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He holds the record for the most pins in a season, and the record is 30 pins. I agree that the phrasing could use a little fine-tuning. Can you think of another way to say this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Hopefully it's clearer now. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've copyedited the rest and added a couple of wikilinks early on. Please check if I have introduced any errors or inaccuracies. I only know professional wrestling through GA :) Geometry guy 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to do that Geometry guy. Looks good. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Let's End This

Alright guys I'm sorry I haven't taken part in this much but I had completely forgotten about this and to be honest, I thought this was resolved. I'd like to apologize to the main contributors of this article that I had this article reassessed only a week after it was passed. But it was do to me botching the review. Can we just assume that the overall consensus is we all think this article is GA good, close this thing for good so we can work on other articles?----Nascar king 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. The article needed work, and has been improved as a consequence of this reassessment. I have a good feeling that this reassessment will end happily, and soon :) Geometry guy 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you all feel like this article still meets Good Article Status now that you all have retaken a GOOD look at the article? Let's end this thing and get back to our lives.----Nascar king 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• The sources also look fine, so I'm closing this as keep. There is life beyond Wikipedia. Geometry guy 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)