Talk:Dralístico/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer Template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

The article is really well written, and almost every piece of information is referenced. I have no issues in giving it GA approval.

Query on review

While I have no quarrel with the prose in the article, I was surprised to see that the narrative stops dead in February 2015, over two and a half years ago, with nothing on what has happened with this wrestler since. Whether there has been any wrestling since, a retirement announced, or something else entirely, I don't see how the broadness criteria are met when the full career is not addressed; "present" is 2017, not early 2015.

I would like to ask Lee Vilenski to reverse his approval pending MPJ-DK bringing the article up to date, and then continue the review from there. It is very unusual for a new editor to begin GA reviews after only a couple of weeks of editing, and there is typically a steep learning curve, so it's not unusual for things to crop up in early reviews.

Note that the removal of the GA template at the bottom of this page had nothing to do with this matter; it's simply that the template does not belong on the review page. When the article is listed the template should only be placed on the talk page (as was also done), replacing the GA nominee template.

I probably would have asked for some minor prose improvements, such as replacing the less encyclopedic ", where he wound up winning the beginner's category" with the more concise "and won the beginner's category". As specified in the GA criteria, "clear and concise" prose is required. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)