Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/CM Punk/archive1

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [1].

CM Punk edit

Notified: Article talk 2020-01-28, WP Chicago, ‎WP Mixed martial arts, WP Professional wrestling, ‎WP Bio/Sports and games, User:Prefall

Review section edit

This FA was promoted in 2007, and the original writer has been gone for more than a decade. The article has fallen out of FA standards. There are numerous maintenance categories, a convoluted TOC, and a MOS review is needed. There are also queries on talk indicating the article is outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred way of going about this, of course, would have been to inform the relevant project of your concerns before nominating it. I see that there was a note on the article talk page, but notifying the project would be a much more effective way to reach people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the WP:FAR instructions. More significantly, GaryColemanFan, are you aware of anyone willing and able to work on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wikilink. I've read the page before. Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the TOC could easily be fixed by {{TOC|3}}. I'm not sure I understand the concerns that the original writer being inactive, that's quite common, no? Without reading through the talk page, could we get a small summary of exactly what MOS issues there are? From what I see: I'd like to remove citations from lede and infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE (can be sourced in professional wrestling persona section), as well as clean up the tagged [citation needed] note & potentially unreliable source. Other than that - the article needs some better paragraphing, and going through with a comb for duplinks. I don't think that would take all that long to do though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to do all the other updates, I will go through and fix MOS issues once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I once saw that there was a talk page message listing a bunch of issues with the article, so when I noticed this pop up on the list of articles with FAR-related talk page notices, I went over to see what I could do. There were a few prose bugs that I was able to fix, but a good number of the past comments went completely over my head. You really need to know more about wrestling than I do to bring an article like this to the highest level possible, so I doubt I can help much. However, I am rooting for the article to receive the attention it needs to retain FA status. I'd suggest trying to resolve the tagged issues first, as most of the tags relate to an unreliable source, which is a no-no for an FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist to Good Article - CM Punk is well known as wrestler and lot hyped wrestling fans like to edit this page due to big user base leaving issues on the page. Indeed it has failed WP:FACRITERIA. Regice2020 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regice2020 please see the WP:FAR instructions. Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is where issues needing correction are identified and the article is hopefully improved. If the article is not improved, it moves to the FARC phase, where Keep or Delist is declared. Also, we don't re-assign GA status; that is a separate process. If an article is delisted FA, projects must reassess status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's unclear what needs to be done. There are a few "unreliable source" tags--almost all of these are used to cite unnecessary details. For example, if it can't be proven with a reliable source that he defended a title against Shad Gaspard, the article wouldn't suffer at all with the mention of Gaspard removed. There are edit requests on the talk page, but this the requested inclusions tend to be trivial or unreferenced (a list of famous friends, etc.). In the original post here, there is a reference to "numerous maintenance categories"--is this still an issue? If so, what categories? I see no problem with the ToC, so clarification would be appreciated here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for working on this GaryColemanFan. Almost an entire section is cited to an unreliable source, so that will need to be resolved. Perhaps, if no reliable source covered that issue, it is UNDUE; you might know better. Separately, I will look at the article overall and give a more comprehensive answer after sorting the next problem.
    Giants2008 mentions seeing a long list of problems with the article, which I went looking for in archives. I am unsure if he is referring to a previous FAR, which ARGGGH ... was deleted out of process rather than archived by the FAR Coords. Can the @FAC coordinators: please use their adminly tools to resurrect whatever was deleted here, and post it to the talk page of this FAR so the rest of us can see it? Giants2008, is that what you were referring to, or is there something else we should be looking at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thread that I saw was on the article's talk page, not on an FAR page, although it may actually be from the deleted FAR. It can be found here, if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the TOC, here is my attempt at removing extraneous wording and consolidating section, but as Giants2008 mentions, one really needs to understand professional wresting (and its manual of style, if there is one) to adequately address this. Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.) Please feel free to do/undo anything I've done on the TOC, as this was just my first stab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a vague memory of an improperly formed FAR that went nowhere, so that list might be everything. I can work through some of it, although I don't watch wrestling, so I can't be much help outside of grammatical fixes. If the unreliable source you are referring to is WWFOldSchool (the one tagged as unreliable), most of it could go. I think two of the points may be worth keeping with a different source (although some of the remaining information would need to be trimmed--for example, I'm sure we could find a source for losing the tag team belts, but not for losing the tag team belts while injured). As for the persona section, I won't bore you with my ranting, but I think any fixes would be best handled by someone who doesn't view the section as a clunky, dense, trivial, reader-hostile eyesore. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem for many of us; I can't tell what is trivia relative to what is important in this topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can try. I'm not familiar with the FA process and English isn't my first language. But I can try some thing. For example, I removed Hardcore holly and Matt Striker 2007 feuds. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to make the article more user-friendly to no-wrestling fans. Remove some in-universe stuff, for example. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to understand what changes you are making because you don't use edit summaries. This makes it difficult to follow the article's progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A week later, no answers on my TOC queries, unreliable sources and maintenance tags still present, no recent edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, no change (except one typo fixing etc. by Iri). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include coverage/organization, sourcing, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references for over a year. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The unreliable references in question (wwfoldschool.com) have now all been removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Holding, it will be several days before I am able to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GaryColemanFan if you are able (or know anyone else who can) to deal with my TOC questions above, and to get someone to cite this:
  • Continuing to espouse his straight-edge philosophy, Punk began to present himself as a cult-like savior to the crowd, growing the hair on his head, face and chest in an allusion to Jesus.[citation needed]
I can re-read the whole thing in a few days and see how we're doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the uncited claim, as the article reads fine without it. As for the TOC, I have no concerns with your version. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GaryColemanFan these are my outstanding TOC and other questions (they cannot be resolved by someone who does not know wresting):
  • "Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.)"
If those can be resolved, I can do a complete read through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the post-retirement appearances are all in professional wrestling. The championship list is in keeping with other professional wrestling articles. I don't love the idea of a table. All of the championships are from professional wrestling--none come from mixed martial arts. I have very little to do with images, but I'm sure removing some wouldn't hurt much. As for the persona section, I have no opinion that would be constructive in this discussion. I guess I could quickly say that I hate the very existence of "persona" sections in wrestling articles, but I don't think this is the place for debates about the section as a whole within the professional wrestling project. I don't know how much this all helps, but I hope it cleared up a bit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GaryColemanFan:, I moved sections so that Professional Wrestling vs. Mixed Martial Arts stayed together, cut two images per excess images causing text sandwiching, and slightly juggled the placement of other images. Please have a look if that is OK, so far, next I will read the whole article to see where we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it, but the WP:PW editors sometimes get very concerned about consistency. I am less concerned about consistency (although, if I can be honest, I don't know that all of these changes are related to FA standards). I would guess that the page is watched by a bunch of WP:PW editors, and they haven't expressed concern about any changes, so I'm not going to press the issue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the edits and I have 0 problems with MMA and Wrestling titles and record being separated in two different sections. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HHH Pedrigree with this series of edits, you have added text to the lead (which should be a summary of text that is already in the body of the article); the new text is not written to FA prose standards, contains bare URLs, and uses sources that I am unsure are reliable. If editors are actively moving the article AWAY from the Featured article standards while it is under review, it will not be productive to continue to evaluate whether the article can retain featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I said, English isn't my first language, so it's hard sometimes to write. I used the template for the sources, but I would apprecitate if somebody improver my text. it's just a small part, since Punk is credited as the first independent wrestler to have succes in WWE and he open the doors for others (Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins...) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are those reliable sources? The lead is a summary of the most important points in the body of the aricle; is that information in the body of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PWTorch and The Observer are reliable sources. 411Mania is limited, but it's mostly used in articles as opinion. I think the text can be included in the charactr section, but start a reception/legacy would be more appropiate. Other wrestlers has a similar section. If you have any problem, we can just delete it, but I think it's usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Primarily two major concerns among wrestling (biography) articles in general I see: the line between reality and kayfabe is often blurred, sometimes incomprehensible, and the excessive, often unnecessary, fighting soap opera. This page is no exception, although the latter concern is relatively small. IW. (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the Coords want to do with this. Great strides were being made, and then text was added to the lead that was not in the body. I suspect we will see this article back at FAR regularly, because it has no main watcher. It's close enough now, but deterioration seems to happen fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have to judge an article on its content at the time it is reviewed, which would indicate that this article is now a keep. DrKay (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been waiting for someone else to opine. If DrKay is okay with a keep here, than so am I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/CM_Punk/archive1&oldid=950417367"