Talk:Bam Bam Bigelow

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

U-Japan

edit

I can not find any information to lead me to believe that U-Japan was a UFC event. The card did include a variety of former UFC fighters, but I suspect was not promoted by UFC or any companies related to UFC. UFC Japan 1 was in 1997, while the U-Japan event happened in 1996. Chadq 17:37, 8 August 2006

Fire story false

edit

Bigelow himself stated several years ago that the story of him rescuing children from a fire was false, and was the invention of WCW to explain his time away.

Link please Jcdizon 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
If it was false, then why was it reported in the Asbury Park Press at the time that it happened?--Hndsmepete 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Source please that the fire story was false.Neoyamaneko 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Newspapers.com has the Asbury Park Press, and I can't find anything about it. What year did this take place?Richjenkins 23:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Scott fought in a Japanese promotion called U-Japan and lost via submission.

http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?search=yes&EventID=388

Reports of Bam Bam's death

edit

It's been reported that Bigelow was found dead today.

I'm not going to update the page myself (due to a LOT of comflicting information coming in), but expect legitimate editing shortly. 24.187.134.57 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greeting from Asbury park, goodbye from me :-) We loved you big man

Alleged Drug Addictions

edit

Any addictions he may have had should only be listed if there is a reputable source. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Supposed overdose

edit

No cause of death was given, nor will one be determineed soon. Until then he did not "die of a drug overdose". There's nop reason to put a cause of death in the article till one is confirmed.

As someone who knew Scott as a regular customer at my job, I'm asking that the above statement be respected. John 09:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

He is dead

edit

Yes, he was found dead today in hes house. www.wwe.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.88.95.34 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

MMA Career

edit

There should be a mention about his MMA fights

Did he have more than one? Random name 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Charles or Bigelow

edit

The main page refers to him as Scott Charles Bigelow, but I've heard radio programs and websites call him Scott Charles. Neoyamaneko 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is a convention in some areas to refer to someone by their first and middle names when the last isn't necessary. It is used in the situations where we would simply call someone by their first name. Peace, -- The Hybrid 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Entrance theme

edit

What is the entrance theme of Bam Bam Bigelow?

--189.216.60.203 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't Fear the Reaper ha ha ha 74.62.14.26 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pay

edit

Wrestlers are known to lie. I'm not saying he didn't make more than $700k in a given year, but if he did, he only made that money when he was under contract with WCW. At no point in his career could he have made that kind of money elsewhere - certainly not during WWF dark ages or even when he was pushed for six months during the Golden Era. I just think we should have a source that's better than Bigelow's own word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.216.198 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bam Bam Bigelow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bam Bam Bigelow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (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 may 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 (talkcontribs)

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

edit
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • 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}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit

General

edit

GA Review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Review meta comments

edit