Talk:Konnan/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has numerous problems. I've listed them in a thread on the talk as well, but here they are:

Career Chronology

The actual layout of the article for his career is as follows:

Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (1992–1996)

World Wrestling Federation (1991–1993)

Extreme Championship Wrestling (1995)

World Championship Wrestling no date in header

Debut (1990)

U.S. Champion; Dungeon of Doom (1996–1997)

nWo (1997–1999)

No Limit Soldiers; Filthy Animals (1999–2001)

World Wrestling Council (no date given)

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (no date - should be 2002-2007)

The 3Live Kru (2003–2005)

The Latin American Xchange (2005–2007)

Return to AAA (2004–2016)

Hijo del Perro Aguayo's death

Lucha Underground (2014–2015)

As can be seen, there are fundamental formatting errors with the headers. On top of all that, everything is out of order - according to the article, Konnan was in UWA in 1987, and debuted for WCW in 1990, went to the WWF and ECW while apparently still at AAA, and then much later, was in TNA and AAA at the same time. So this fails GAC1.

Bio Issues

Two different dates given for his birthday, and three until I corrected it - one source says January 6, another says June 6, and a claim cited to a source it wasn't in said he debuted for UWA on his birthday, January 26, 1987. That's a basic WP:V problem, it was brought up on talk before, and was never addressed.

Bio is largely cited to two articles, one of which isn't long enough to support 35 citations. The other has 17. That's too much reliance on two sources for the bulk of the article, which tells me it's possibly too close to copyvio.

So possible and actual are two different things, if you're delisting it you should probably do better than "possibly" you know? it would be good to actually be sure before taking such a drastic, unilatral step. The Slam article is quite detailed and used to fill in especially the early part where there are not a lot of other sources - the fact that there is a reliable source should not be discounted just because it's used repeatedly, doesn't make it any less reliable.
"Largely cited to two articles" really downplays the fact that there are 61 other sources listed for the article. MPJ-DK 03:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of which are single page references and title belt histories, and throwaways - do we really need 2 citations for the fact that Konnan was ringside for Hijo de Perro Aguayo's final match? Also 61 other sources? OK, well, between those two sources, there are 61 citations, so those two sources are the equivalent of everything else in the article. Does that put it in a better perspective for you? As for copyvio, I don't know how you get 35 references out of less than 35 sentences without direct copying. I could also go the coatracking route, but the fact of the matter is that the article is too overly reliant on too few sources for too much information. MSJapan (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your math is off, and apparently the single citations are dismissed now too? What is the sweet spot inbetween? Seems to be your judgement call so what is it? 2-8? Is 9 too many you see how.arbitrary this.comment is? And "Coatrack"? Should i get you a bale of hay since you seem to like to grasp.at straws? MPJ-DK 11:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you have a vested interest here, but this article is not GA material. Do you not understand there are basic factual errors and a severe lack of clarity? I've reordered the chronology, but the fact of the matter is that he's claimed to work for several promotions simultaneously without explanation (particulary multi-promotion debuts), most of his actual career is uncited, his debut year was wrong per the source it was cited to, and a lot of other information is unclear - did he win the boxing title in the Navy or afterwards? At what point did he start booking for AAA? On what basis is he even called "the Hulk Hogan of Mexico"? The latter point seems to be "really important", and yet there's no basis for it given in the article.

If you want to nitpick on details and claim that I'm wrong because there's 60 citations instead of 61, go right ahead, but that's not going to change the overall informational problems with the article. The simple fact of the matter is that a biography shouldn't have 30+ citations out of an article that doesn't have 30 sentences - the added fact that I have found incorrect information that was supposed from that article pretty much indicates that the article is being used to cite information that isn't in it, and that's a problem. Now, you can either help fix the problem, or you can stop attacking me because you don't agree with facts, but I'm not going to argue with you here anymore. MSJapan (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particular like Konnan and really have not done much to the article over the years despite Lucha Libre being my focus. I am "vested" in the heavyhanded approach I am seeing, no real attempt tofix issues before the reassessment anf then a reassesment that has several wrong assumptions. I see plenty of things that can be addressed, chronology is #1 i hate the layout. Also i would replace the Online World of Wrestling citations if possible, it is marginally reliable. However i don't see a probelem if an article is used extensively as a source, especially on his early career. Good sources of the time in Mexico are hard to come by. If a source does not cover the claim i agree with your approach, remove source, citation needed. But if the article sources something what does it matter how many times it is head ? If it is not a copyright violation ot too close a paraphrase I don't see the problem, it covers a claim- end of story imo. I have a couple of books that can probably cover some of the claims, but what is the point? You asked why there were 2 sources for Perro Jr's death, then ask the same for other instances? To me there is a difference in "we ahould fix this to keep it GA" and "We should fix it so' you can renominate for GA" which seems to be your approach. I am saying this can be fixed in a couple of days easy, I could do it, but you seem to be running with it. I'll "unvest" since you've got this thing going on with the reassessment and future renomination that I am just not digging the vibe of. MPJ-DK 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the assumption at the root of the problem - I'm pre-emptively dealing with the GAR because I don't think it's a short-term fix - there's a major problem with Milner I'm going to illustrate. I've been able to fix pieces, but I don't think it's GA material, and I don't think I can fix it "in a few days", but I'm going to try. I'm sorry that you are under the misapprehension that I'm in this for myself, but you know what? I've gone ten years on WP without a GA nom, and having one (or not) at this point is meaningless. I don't need to impress anybody, but what I can tell you is that I do know what I'm doing, and I didn't feel like waiting a month for a community de-list, because I've done that before too.

As far as the article sourcing goes, Milner states very clearly that Konnan was in WCW at Starrcade after he was in WCW "Konnan did a short stint with WWE, under his own name, as well as "Maximillion Moves", "Max Moon" and "El Electrico". Eventually, the organization settled on Max Moon, but before long a frustrated Konnan had left the organization and Paul Diamond replaced him in the role. Konnan had a short stopover in WCW, teaming with Rey Mysterio Sr, as "Team Mexico", competing in the Pat O'Connor Memorial International Tag Team Tournament."

Meanwhile, WWEClassics, in an interview with Konnan says the exact opposite, and the chronology is independently verifiable. In the interview, Konnan says he was in WCW, met with Pat Patterson and then went to meet with Vince before joining WWE. We know the O'Connor Tournament was at Starrcade 1990, and that Konnan met with Pat Patterson on New Year's Eve in 1990 and thus could not have joined WWE until 1991. So we have Milner (30+ citations, remember) with an actual factual error with what several sources of independent facts say. I'd also point out that Milner has a discrepancy with respect to Konnan's birthdate. This brings up a real question of WP:RS here for that source, and is one of the reasons I don't think this is a short-term fix.

I've additionally found several sources that simply don't have the information they've been cited for. This is also a fundamental GA problem. In short, the article just isn't where it needs to be to be a GA, and maybe I can fix it in a few days, but maybe I have to re-source 30+ citations. MSJapan (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you don't have to convince me it'll take you a while to do it, go for it, you've got it handled dude. MPJ-DK 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may help with the chronology http://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=103&page=4&s=1000 this page and the previous one covers WCW/WWF matches, hope it helps clarify the timeline for you - as you can see it's all kinds of mixed in where he worked. MPJ-DK 22:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Career Incomplete

There are many more titles listed for promotions that aren't even in the career section.
He's called the "Mexican Hulk Hogan" for being on TV, yet there's not a single thing about television appearances in the article. So there's a verifiability problem wrt GAC2.

Through more careful use of the sources in the article, I've been able to address the early chronology a little - it's not quite where it should be, but there's at least information on why he was getting popular on television, and I have been able to figure out where he was when up through his work with EMLL. The WWE appearances are still clunky - Konnan's recollections in the WWE interview on Max Moon weren't reflective of the article's phrasing, and I think it needs to be reordered slightly as a result. Nevertheless, it's now clear when he got into the promo, and when he got out. According to the same interview, Konnan also wrestled in Japan prior to WCW or WWE, and that seems to not be UWA either, so that information needs to be located as well. I will addit and comment it out in the article. MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Flat-out fails GAC6. 30 year career, 2 pictures. MSJapan (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? "Flat out fails"? *SMH* do you really gasp the GA criteria? MPJ-DK 02:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you seriously mean to tell me two images is "well-illustrated" for a performer who's been on eight televised wrestling promotions and 27 TV specials? MSJapan (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sooooo.... that is not actually the critera you do know that right? "Well illustrated" is not the criteria, it is in fact "Illustrated, if possible, by images" (direct quote) - with a modifier "if possible" no less. 1 picture with proper license would actually fullfill this critera. Hench my question if you actually understood the criteria. MPJ-DK 03:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I maintain that "if possible" is very possible here, as we haven't looked at Commons, potential NFCC material, Flickr, or any of the other usual suspects. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is illustrated, volume is not a criteria. "If possible" is to make sure that even GAs without pictures can pass. It is about the article after all. And you assume that no one has done that because YOU have not done that?

Closing comments

The entire previous discussion took place on July 26, and nothing has been posted here since. Furthermore, MSJapan has not edited on Wikipedia since September 25. I think, under the circumstances, we can consider this reassessment abandoned.

In any event, I have concerns about the reassessment properly reflecting the GA criteria; in particular MSJapan's assertion that the article "flat-out fails GAC6" is completely wrong. While it would be nice to have more images, two free images is not bad and certainly enough to satisfy the criteria, and since there are two free ones, the odds of being able to successfully assert that any non-free ones should be added are quite small.

Should MSJapan return and still believe the article doesn't meet the criteria, at this point, having made significant edits to the article, the only proper venue would be a community reassessment. For the present, this article is being kept as a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]