Talk:Kenny Omega/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contains copyright infringements - Checked all images - All are free Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CopyVio check brings up a 54% chance of an infringement, however, I don't buy it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - No tags, other than a dead link. Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

No disambig links Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
several referencing errors that need tagging/fixing/archiving N Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

Wikilink Professional wrestler Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider if you need to abbreviate a company name in the lede, if you don't use the abbreviation in the lede. Such as with AEW.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Omega is perhaps best known for his tenure - ^{[according to whom?]} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A full list of his titles in New Japan is irrelevent. Only major titles in the lede. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Omega is also known for his time as part of the" - Bad word choice. Not GA level wordage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This whole lead both goes into too much detail, and too little. It is not well written Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've wikilinked the Young Bucks, you don't also need to say who they are. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 6-man titles are hardly a career highlight. Shouldn't be in the lead. Read WP:WEIGHT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More information on a tonne of titles in the last paragraph. The lede should summarize, and give a bit of info on career progression. This lede says he's worked places, and won all this stuff. It's hardly a summary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career

Him having a sister should be in the personal life section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started to do a review of this, but it's just not going to pass. I'll summarize my issues with the prose below, but there's quite a lot:
WP:NPOV issues. Things like "impressive debut", " quickly became a rising star in PCW", can't be used, unless they are suitible ^{[according to whom?]} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like "Smith has stated in several interviews that his time spent with DSW was poor and has been particularly critical of promoters DeMott and Jody Hamilton,[17] and trainer Bob Holly.[21]", are fine, but should mention who these interviews are with. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Each section after the WWE section starts with "on X date, Omega debuted for". I understand he worked a lot of places simultaneously, however, it has zero flow. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
every section just goes through a list of results (apart from NJPW, which has other issues, below)Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NJPW has HUGE paragraphs. This needs serious cutting down. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

I will start the review today, however, I may not finish the review, and will restart on Monday. Feel free to update the article to reflect any thing I have already highlighted, or discuss anything with me on this page, or my talk page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 15 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.