Wikipedia:Peer review/Chris Benoit/archive1

Chris Benoit

Chris Benoit exemplifies the best in professional wrestling, and his article exemplifies one of the best written articles here on Wikipedia. about a wrestler. Chad1m 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article lacks references as required by FA criteria 2c. The image Image:Benoit & Woman.jpg is lacking source information. The "Wrestling facts" section also needs to be converted from a list format into text. --Allen3 ^talk 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Allen3. Also needs proofreading.--Bcrowell 03:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, as above. Also, is there any information on him outside of his career? Childhood, inspirations, influences, that sort of thing? Fieari 04:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Per Fieari and Allen3. Some sections, like records and trivia should be converted into prose. RyanG e rbil10 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:PR - this is a nice-looking article, but the lists are excessive ("Westling facts", "Trivia", "Championships and accomplishments", "Championship succession") - please move to a sub-page, or sumamrise as prose here, or both. References are also essential. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, just doesn't cut it as written. -AKMask 19:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object per above. Staxringold 16:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was referred to peer review from FAC, because it clearly has a snowball's chance of being promoted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an inappropriate peer review request. The submitter (User:Johnleemk) has not indicated what the desired goal of the peer review is, but based upon the discussion it would appear that this request would be better served if it was submitted to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup instead. --Allen3 ^talk 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to Wikipedia talk:Peer review and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. This has been accepted practice for quite some time, and just because someone removed it from the FAC procedure page to cut down on verbiage doesn't mean it's prohibited. Pages needing attention, requests for expansion and cleanup are all totally inappropriate for this article, as they are (ahem) either for pages needing expansion or really really screwed up articles. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite Johnleemk's comments, moving other people's FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is not accepted practice. Please see the talk page link I posted below. Cedars 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to move FAC nominations to peer review verbatim is a source of controversy, to further discuss the issue or review existing discussion, please see the talk page topic here.