Talk:Lancashire wrestling/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Spagooder (talk · contribs) 23:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 05:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Starting review

Hi, Spagooder, I'll review this. Hope to come back soon. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Thanks. Spagooder (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've made a start by doing some tidying and I've provisionally classified it as a C, pending completion of review, as it certainly isn't a stub. By the way, I had to laugh when I read "theatrical professional wrestling" in the lead! I'm going to be busy in real life from now for the next couple of days but will hopefully be able to find time to complete the review over the weekend. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I had to specify "theatrical" because it had already been a professional sport for a long time beforehand. Spagooder (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written. The prose is fine and I just needed to do some basic copyediting on things like quote marks, spacing, and a couple of American spellings. There are no spelling, grammar, or syntax issues now and I can't see anything that is outside MOS guidelines. The lead could perhaps be expanded a bit, but I think it is satisfactory as a concise summary which provides a good introduction to a significant sporting history subject.
2. WP:V and WP:NOR. The reflist is good and the citations are presented in standard publishing format. No problems in this area and certainly no evidence of original research or copyright issues.
3. Breadth of coverage. Focus is within scope and coverage is adequate given that there is limited information in sources. I notice you mentioned the predictable lack of interest from Victorian newspapers.
4. Neutrality. No problems.
5. Stability. No problems.
6. Images. These are really good. It is true that pictures say a thousand words. All are PD and all are relevant, so no problems around using them here.

Hi again, Spagooder. I think this is an excellent piece of work on an interesting (indeed, fascinating) subject that is not well-known despite its historical significance. I am promoting the article to WP:GA. Very well done. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the time to edit and review the article, I'm glad you enjoyed it. What would be your suggestions for expanding the lead? Spagooder (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't expand it but, as it's a single paragraph, I was sort of playing devil's advocate a bit there because some people might say it's too short. I actually prefer a short introduction but the MOS here recommends a summary of the whole article which, in any event, I think you have accomplished. All the best. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)