Talk:Don Kent (wrestler)

message: I'm confused by the sentence: "Kent worked as a Veterans Administration Medical Center..." Should that be "at a Veterans..."? GaryColemanFan 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting question 

message: Hello, I will be reviewing this article for GA candidacy. The good news is that so far it passes the quick fail criteria, so a full review is forthcoming. Check back in a day or two. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: This is a well written article, but I simply must fail it for the lack of sources. Many things should be sourced with citations. For example, the sentence about the Red Sox in the early career section should be sourced. This article is written well enough, but still needs more sources to reach GA level. Also, the picture in the infobox really doesn't belong in the article, considering the said person is not even in there. Feel free to re-nominate this article when all the requirements above have been met. Any questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. FamicomJL (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written:
#:Not Yet The Manual of style states that an article section should have at least 80 words of hard statistics or 250 words of "soft" knowledge. Smaller areas like the "Death" and "In Wrestling"  sections need to be either merged or removed entirely.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable:
#:Pass (barely) The sources of the article are formatted properly, but it is my opinion that there aren't enough of them. Though there is no requirement for the number of sources needed on a GA article, this article appears to rely heavily on two primary sources. I would strongly recommend you find some more sources, virtually every detail on the article should be cited for good measure.
#It is broad in its coverage:
#:Pass It seems broad enough.
#It follows the neutral point of view policy:
#:Pass no problem there.
#It is stable:
#:Not Yet once the improvements are made this will not be a problem.
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
#:Not Yet The lack of images is certainly a hit to the Article, I would strongly recommend getting at least one image pretaining to the subject matter. Also, the "Managers" and "Championships and Accomplishments" sections need to be put into table format.
#Overall:
#:On Hold until above issues are resolved. -Ed! (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written:
#:Pass the issues were dealt with.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable:
#:Pass yeah, I meant "primary" as in it has two "main" sources. But they seem good enough.
#It is broad in its coverage:
#:Pass
#It follows the neutral point of view policy:
#:Pass
#It is stable:
#:Pass
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
#:Pass well, the table counts as an illustration. I would suggest getting any amateur shots you could find, I don't know why they would not allow an image here on fair use but I guess there's nothing you can do.
#Overall:
#:Pass sorry about that delay, well done. -Ed! (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review