Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well Dunn/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:30, 17 October 2009 [1].

Well Dunn

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all criteria for a Featured Article. It recently passed a GA review, and I believe that its comprehensiveness and verifiability make it an excellent FA candidate. A few notes about the sources:

Because of the lack of published sources about match results on mid-1990s wrestling television shows, I have used "cite episode" references for several details. I got the results from Graham Cawthon's The History of WWE website and checked videos of each of the broadcasts to ensure the accuracy of the information. I do, in fact, have all of these events on tape and I have dug through the boxes in my basement to verify the information.
Speaking of Graham Cawthon's website, it has not previously been accepted as a reliable source. I believe that its (relatively sparing) use in this article should be considered acceptable because (1) as stated above, the information on the website is consistently accurate, (2) the website's feedback, as seen here shows that it has received positive reviews from many industry experts, including wrestlers and wrestling journalists (book, magazine, and website); several of these authors, whose work is considered a reliable source due to the publications for which they write, refer to The History of WWE as a valuable resource, and (3) Graham Cawthon's status as an industry expert is supported by his position as a writer for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, which is considered a reliable source.
I have also used Online World of Wrestling for three minor facts. I believe that the nature of these facts, one of which is a wrestler's height and is not likely to be disputed, and the the other two of which are simply used to bridge a short gap in the article and are also not likely to be challenged, should not be seen as a hindrance to Featured Article status because they (as uncontroversial facts) are essentially superfluous and are included only for ease of reading. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I have added it, although it is the first time I have added alternative text to an image, so it may need some fine-tuning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks good. For next time, it doesn't have to be quite that long (to save you some work); please see WP:ALT#Brevity. Eubulides (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/pnwttnwa.html
  - The information is primarily gathered from the Wrestling Title Histories book. This one title change is not included in the book, which seems to be an omission. Since this title change is backed up by several other websites, I felt that it was important to include in the interests of accuracy and comprehensiveness. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com (Yes, I saw the above. I'm not convinced. At the very least, I'd rather see reviews of the site that aren't hosted on the site itself.)
  - Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Graham Cawthon's work is considered so accurate that it is included as a feature in both WrestleView ([2]) and [3]), both of which are accepted as reliable sources for wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrestling Title Histories is the only work released by its publisher see here. What makes this reliable?
  - I'd question that site as the "definitive word" on books as the Wrestling Title histories has been published in four editions yet not reflected there. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In addition, industry expert John Molinaro (a regular columnist for the wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer, which is considered one of the best reliable sources for wrestling articles) calls it an "essential resource" and the "authoritative book on the history of wrestling titles" ([4]).
- http://www.wrestlecrap.com/oldinductions.html
  - The site is run by RD Reynolds, who is accepted as an industry expert and has published several wrestling-related books (Wrestlecrap:The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling, The Death of WCW, and The Wrestlecrap Book of Lists, all published by ECW Press). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com (I saw the above also, and am unconvinced. If it's an uncontroversial fact, we can either not source it or can source it from a primary source)~~
  - Primary sources are hard to come by, and I'd rather not have unsourced information in the prose. I'll remove the citation for the height, which just leaves the one sentence with sources from Online World of Wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I figured out a way around this, but it will take a day or so to get the information from another editor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. I removed all Online World of Wrestling references and replaced them with reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.nwawrestling.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=16&Itemid=33&0da7ea0fa00243950053999b1ce8c78c=720f73dea89a407a4b08b22f7785320c&limitstart=14&0da7ea0fa00243950053999b1ce8c78c=720f73dea89a407a4b08b22f7785320c
  - The site is operated by the National Wrestling Alliance, one of the top two wrestling organizations in the US since 1948. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave these others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Since little seems to be happening here, I thought I would stop by to offer a couple of prose comments. As it turns out, that's how many you're getting:

~~Early years: "After a rematch on September 9, the title was held up". What does "held up" mean?~~
- I rephrased it. Does it work better now? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~WWF (1994): Picky, but I'm pretty sure "newly-formed" shouldn't have the hyphen in the middle.~~
- I checked with the Chicago Manual of Style, and you're correct. Because one of the words is an adverb ending in "ly", it can't be hyphenated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, I remember the previous batch of wrestling articles at FAC had features like real-life names of wrestlers and explanations of jargon elements. I see some jargon explanations, but only the ring names of non-Well Done wrestlers are included. Did the project change their consensus on that recently? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the project changed consensus about the need for real names (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 71#Another pay-per-view related thread and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 71#Real names). I have tried to explain several terms when it could be done without disrupting the prose and left others wikilinked, as is common in other recently promoted Featured Articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: No issues. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.