Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have made a few comments below. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Do you think it would work to combine "Early life" and "Personal life" as each section is quite short and both have to do with his personal life?
• You say his "Finishing and signature moves" was the "Reverse neckbreake" but you don't explain it in the article, say how he came up with it, why it was his signature move etc. (Also, what is a finishing move?)
• Is there any information as to his "Legacy" or "Impact", other than listing his "Championships and accomplishments"?
• The article could benefit from some transitions between paragraphs and some of the paragraphs could be combined for less choppiness. For example, one para starts out: "In the Carolinas, Hanson began teaming..." - is there any way to have a transition as to how he ended up in the Carolinas?
• After the Carolinas, the article become vague regarding where he was living. It seems like his home base was in the Carolinas, but this is never stated in the career section, as the reader tries to follow his career.
• All in all, if you could just fill in a little more detail, so the paragraphs could flow better. (Tracking his location is one way of helping hang things together.)

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose is choppy; needs to be more fluid b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Does not cover his "Legacy" or "Impact"; leaves out explanations of his location; does not describe his signature move, the "reverse neckbreaker" b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Regretfully, I fail it. No work has been done on the article since January. The article remains incomplete and is not comprehensive enough for GA.

If you feel this assessment is in error you may submit the article to Good article reassessment or resubmit the article to Good article nominations. If you feel this assessment is in error you may submit the article to Good article reassessment or resubmit the article to Good article nominations.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]