Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dwayne Johnson/1
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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Being last assessed in 2008 with only few comments, I decided to read the article and copyedit. Writing quality is average and the tone is sometimes not neutral. For example the "Early life" section lists the high schools attended in unsettling clusters. Some sentences are just too long to read, like:
By his senior year at Freedom High School, Johnson had only played two years of high school football but the fact that he had excelled on a team in an elite high school athletic division known nationally for producing a long list of professional and Olympic-level athletes, including future NFL stars Andre Reed, Saquon Barkley, Kyzir White, and others, drew the attention of NCAA Division I collegiate programs.
The "Legacy and career assessment" have an original research. I fact-checked some of the citations throughout the article and some were questionable. For example, the fact that he was he was in freshman year during his time in the 1991 Miami Hurricanes football team is not clearly mentioned in the citations.
The "Professional wrestling career" has it's own set of problems. In general, it is too long and overly detailed. There are many unnecessary plot points. One of the many instances where it could be trimmed is:
In the end, it came down to a one-on-one between the Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin. The Rock seemed to have the upper hand, until his teammate Jericho entered the ring and attacked the Rock. Austin tried to capitalize on this by pinning the Rock, but Kurt Angle revealed his true allegiance by attacking Austin. The Rock then pinned Austin, giving Team WWF the victory and forcing The Alliance to disband.
The overall layout of the article could be further assessed. IW. (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oof, I totally agree this needs addressing. On one hand, the article is cited throughout, so it could be fixed up to GA status, but in its current form it's just not good enough. Lots of really poor wording, WP:PROSELINE, the lede is six paragraphs when it should be a maximum of four, lots of slapdash information with confusing layout.
- I do think it could be fixed up, especially with a strong copyedit to start. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)