Talk:Nik Wallenda/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 17:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. It's my practice to do a cursory review and use the GAList template, and then if necessary, comment on the prose and do a more thorough review afterwards. I also tend to do reviews in fits and starts depending upon my schedule, so please be patient with me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is actually quite good. My issue with this article is more MOS. I think that this article is much too long, and involves too many unneeded details. A bio, IMO, shouldn't include every aspect of someone's career; in this case, every detail about every trick Wallenda's ever performed. I recommend that you either cut out the superfluous details, or that you create new articles like "Career of Nik Wallenda" or "Tricks performed by N.W." I think that the section about the Niagara Falls walk could be an interesting article on its own. Both ideas would substantially shorten this article. If you did it, you should summarize the new articles here. See WP:SPINOFF. There's also a lot of unnecessary words; for example: "Before Troffer had even finished assembling it..." You don't need the word "even". I recommend that you go through the article and cut out similar unnecessary words.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Uses reliable news sources throughout. I did a cursory check of the sources. Be careful: ref 1 makes no mention of W's age and ref 2 doesn't mention his nickname, at least what I saw. Make sure that your sources match up with the claims you make.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See above about creating new articles. Currently, it's too broad, and splitting into new articles would focus it substantially.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Please read the NPOV policy; currently, this article suffer from WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. This article also depends too heavily on quotes by W, which creates an overly-positive tone, which makes it feel more like a fan page than an encyclopedic article. If you (forgive the repetition) create new articles, that'll probably do away with much of it, especially when you summarize. I suggest that you paraphrase the quotes rather than use so many direct quotes.

For example, this is how I would rewrite the first paragraph to take care of what I'm talking about: "Wallenda is a seventh-generation member of The Flying Wallendas family of aerialists. His ancestors have been circus performers since the 1700s and have been doing balancing acts without nets since Karl Wallenda's performances in the 1920s. Wallenda credits Karl Wallenda as his inspiration for carrying on the family tradition and legacy, and considers his place in his family as an honor, stating that it is "like standing on the shoulders of giants".[7] Notice that my version is much shorter and cuts out some redundancy.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Images look free. I suggest getting a second opinion, though, since image reviews are a big weakness for me.
Overall: The prose is adequate enough for GA, but I suggest that you get someone to copyedit it for you if you want to take it further. Splitting in into 1-2 articles would also tighten up things.
Pass/Fail:
Make the above recommended changes, and I'll pass it. I have one question, though, and I'll ask it here because it doesn't fit anywhere else. Why did Nik take his mother's name and not his father's. I can guess the answer, but does any source answer that question? If it doesn't, don't bother answering it. I'll forego my usual thorough review of the prose; as I say above, it's adequate for GA, and if you create new articles, it becomes less of an issue. Let me know how else I can assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus hasn't edited since August, so unfortunately this will have to be failed. The prose definitely needs tightening, though I don't like the split idea myself. Wizardman 04:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]