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 16:55, 6 April 2008.

Triple H[edit]

Self-nominator Overall, this article is pretty well written, a fair well amount to the lead section, informing readers about this wrestlers history. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. It also includes a fair amount of images, with good quality to improve the article otherwise. This article stays on the main detail on the wrestler without going into anything else, thats not related to the wrestler. In short, I think this might make a good future-FA. Rk OR To N 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://prowrestling.about.com/od/wwerawwrestlers/p/tripleh.htm About.com isn't considered the most reliable source.~~
- This was used once in the article to cite information that already was cited by two other sources, so I'm not sure of its point. Anyway, I removed it. Nikki311 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PWI Staff. Pro Wrestling Illustrated presents: 2007 Wrestling almanac & book of facts. "Wrestling’s historical cards" (p.102) Is this a book? It is formatted inconsistently with the other references. It's used a lot and formatted different ways at different spots
- Fixed, they are all uniform now. Nikki311 19:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Current ref 70 (Title History: European) is lacking publisher information~~

done Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.wrestlingattitude.com/index2.php a reliable site? (The fact that it bypassed my popup blocker TWICE isn't a good sign in my book)~~
- Yeah. That one looks sketchy to me, too, so I replaced it. Nikki311 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/pwi/pwi500.htm a reliable site? I note that it says at the bottom "This is a hobby site.."~~
- No longer used in the article. Nikki311 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Current ref 90 needs publisher and last access date (http://www.triplehunleashed.com/info/paul/family.html)~~

done Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://www.rapreviews.com/interview/game2006.html is lacking publisher infromation.~~

done Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://www.wweshop.com/Product_detail.asp?productId=35-00610 is lacking publisher information and date of last access~~

done Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.otherarena.com/htm/main.shtml generally considered a reliable site for biographies?
- The website seems to sum up the overall career of any superstar's background. Past and present. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is only used to cite facts that are hardly controversial (i.e. results, ring names, etc). I know other people consider it very reliable, but if consensus here is that it isn't, those sorts of facts con be cited with information elsewhere. Nikki311 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is behind http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/ and what sort of fact checking do they do on submitted articles?
- Online World of Wrestling has a staff of writers who record the results (wins and losses) of shows and pay-per-views. Their results are 100% accurate. They also accept commentary/editorial like articles from outside writers, but if they are full of inaccuracies, etc. they are not accepted. Nikki311 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was previously known as Obsessed With Wrestling for many years, and has only changed in name and some graphics. While OWW (whichever interpretation) is not a reference for EVERY match result in history, the ones they list are accurate, especially those from the more recent era. AKKIfokkusu^TaLk —Preceding comment was added at 05:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.wrestling-titles.com/home.html is a reliable site for this information? (The fact that it overrode my no popups isn't endearing me to the site)
- Pop-up issues aside, the information on the site is accurate. The site lists sources, contributors, and fact checkers]. Nikki311 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/challenge.htm looks like a personal site to me, not Online World of Wrestling which is listed as the publisher in the citation.
- I fixed the publisher information. If you look on the main page, there are testimonials from some very well respected people in the wrestling and wrestling journalism business. Also, there is a list of people and publications that are used as sources. Nikki311 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this site a reliable site http://www.pwwew.net/index2.htm?
- Just like Online World of Wrestling, they have a staff of writers to record the results of shows and pay-per-views. They accept columns from outside writers, but in this case, the site is only used to cite results, which are hardly controversial, as millions of people saw them and would write in to correct them if they posted anything wrong. Nikki311 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.lordsofpain.net/ a reliable site? ( I couldn't investigate it well as it was loading really slowly for me)
- Honestly, it depends on what they are saying...news vs. rumors. In this case, it is only used to cite the fact the Triple H was in a commercial for Wendy's. I'm not sure if that even needs a citation...as anybody can watch the commercial on youtube if they wanted...the commercial does exist. I just did a quick google search, though, and couldn't find any other cites (other than a cite like youtube or aol video) that mentions the commercial. Nikki311 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All links check out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to check the sources and comment. :) All the problems have been fixed or the reliability of the cites explained. Any further comments would be wonderful. Thanks. Nikki311 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through and hid resolved issues. I'm leaving the above up so others can judge the sources and responses for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I find the prose lumpy and indigestible (1a). Issues with refs (1c)

MOS says don't make time-dependent statements like: "He is starring in the upcoming" (needs "due for release in 2009", or something like that).
- Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After graduating high school"—Formal US English requires "from"? I'm unsure, but I'd thought so.
- Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Title: "Professional wrestling career"—remove "career", esp. as occurs in the previous one.
- Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"televised"—US spelling, please. Check through the whole article.
- I'm pretty sure "televised" is the correct US spelling. "Televized" doesn't seem to be a word, and I don't know how else to spell it. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Levesque's request to be pushed as a singles competitor"—If "pushed" is jargon (it's linked as such), it should be explicated on the spot. Cater for more than experts, please. And why is "pushed" used and again linked to the same place in the very next para? And again later. Don't repeat-link like this, please.
- I've removed the overlinking for now, but have yet to think of a good way to reword. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"However, in the video, many people often mistake Garner for Shawn Michaels, or a younger Jeff Hardy." Says who? Citation?
- I removed that. I it reads like unsourcable OR to me. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" had dubbed himself "The Game," implying that he was at the top of the wrestling world, and was dubbed "The Cerebral Assassin"". Dubbed repetition.
- Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain your use of the word "storyline" on its first occurrence.
- Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the refs all OK? I looked at Ref 53 and found a copyright name at the bottom of the web site that's not specified in the list.
Ref 5: I see the authors are "John Milner and Jason Clevett", but this appears nowhere in the Note. Refs need a thorough audit.
- Added the authors and checked all the other refs to make sure there wasn't the same problem. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TONY (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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