Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Foley/archive1

Mick Foley

is and excellent article,has images where needed and with good caption.

little to none grammatical errors. very indepth article and not too long. many references and external links. is very comprehensive. is neutral and factually accurate,very stable. has a good table of contents.

arguably one of the,if not the best,wrestler biography on Wikipedia. Lord revan 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although this article is about as close as I've come to supporting a wrestling FAC, this one still falls short in a few ways. First, 8 refs is all right, but somewhat thin for this much text. Second, that huge trivia section has to go, try breaking the information apart into the appropriate sections (I had to do it for Cheers). Also, the article is 69kb long, which is pretty big. Finally, the images should be a little more evenly and cleanly distributed throughout the article, and at least one free image would be nice (though not key) for a bio. Staxringold 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too long? What articles have you been reading? :P And I see 4 pictures, 1 at the start, and all the others next to each other roughly 3/4 down the page. Highway 18:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Working on it,wouldnt mind if someone helped,as im not exactly the best editor on this page,took away some useless trivia,and took away the WCCW (Thats WCCW,not WCW) part because i think most people would want to know about hiss WWF/ECW years

i really dont know where to start trimming,hmm Lord revan 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Please remove the trivia section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support once trivia section is edited. Good article! --Liface 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- images need sourcing and fair use rationales. Jkelly 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment images are more equally spread now,and me and the others are working on trimming. EDIT : the trivia section is now heavily trimmed. Lord revan 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, nuts. This article just fails as a Featured Article in so many ways. A problem (insurmountable?) with so many articles on wrestling figures is that there is difficulty in seperating the character from the preformer... for instance, shouldn't there be an article on The Undertaker and one on Mark Callaway? In reflection of pro-wrestling's reality skewing maleability, these elements are often combined in our articles, being less about the men and women that portray the fantastic and larger than life people, and more about the characters they play. This is seen in this article's structure: it is a littany of developments over Foley's character's career(s), more distressingly the stuff seen by most people (the WWE stuff). His pre-WWE years garner several choppy paragraphs seperated by brand, and then expands when he gets to ECW/WCW/WWE. Did foley spring into existance upon becomming a wrestler, or did he have, you know, a childhood? And its not like there is a dearth of information about Foley's past and pre-wrestling years: He wrote TWO very large, very clear, very well-written and comprehensive memoirs. There needs to be greater balance, and in its current state, there is no balance at all. There is almost nothing on his personal life, scant information on his non-wrestling career, and most distressing, one paragraph on his writing career. ONE PARAGRAPH? This is not just a man who is rightfully reveared as a hardcore legend, this is a man who has written two well-recieved, best selling memoirs, several children's books, and with his latest novels, is gaining increased respect and notability as a fiction author for adults. That just scratches the surface here - the article is poorly written, has no real references, too many damned links, too much cruft and not enough craft. And worse yet, this is probably one of our better pro-wrestling articles. Do NOT send to peer review, do NOT attempt to re-write or build, do NOT pass go or collect $200. Start from scratch. Do not look at it as a wrestling article, but an encyclopedia article. If there is anyone who deserves a featured article, and if there is anyone with enough information for one to be written, it is Foley. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article recently had a lot of under-researched and sloppily-written passages and categories added to it. It needs a lot of cleanup before it should be considered for feature article status. Bcarlson33 18:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well,i would add to it if had actually read his books,but think about how big it would be then,and size is already a problem. since it looks like you have read the books maybe you could help? Lord revan 09:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the best wrestler-related Wikipedia article I have ever read. Don't listen to everyone saying you need to start from scratch, as it is fine as is.