Not reviewing despite what the template says unless I happen to find the time in the near future, just have some comments. I have serious reservations about the reception section. Namely, who are any of these people, anyway? It reads like the results of someone's Google search and nothing more. When they're complaining about the length of the show, is that based on the standards of the day or today's standards inasfar as attention span is concerned? Many articles related to musical recordings make an effort to include and acknowledge contemporary reviews. So why is that not occurring here and why are the views of Dave Meltzer, Wade Keller and Steve Beverly not included?
Also, I see my previous concern about Donald Trump was not addressed in the least. It appears that a citation to Bret Hart's book was copied over from another article but not fully spelled out, leaving a dead-end link to "Hart 2007" that doesn't help readers who aren't already familiar with the source. Perhaps this should be quick-failed until some proper attention to sourcing is given? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you aren't planning on reviewing the article, you shouldn't be opening the review template. This means you are going to review the article. This article has already been waiting for over 8 months for a review! If you have issues with the sourcing, comment this on the talk page, not start up a review to cause issues with an actual reviewer.
Do you have sources for the above reviewers? I have star ratings from Wrestling Observer, but that's about it, and it doesn't help towards writing a reception section.
The Hart citation was done in Harvard style book referencing, which is common for Wikipedia, however, I have expanded this citation.
I'm really not sure what a quick fail would do, considering you haven't raised anything that isn't quite easily fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Um, IWNerd.com? Wow. Should we really be rewarding you in your claim that you're offering the best that Wikipedia has to offer when it's that obvious you're giving weight to whatever you found lying around the web? As for your concerns about procedure or timing, there's a little thing called WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Let's look back at what happened with Bobby Heenan. I did bring up issues on the talk page which were ignored for years and years. Then it was nominated for GA, which itself was ignored for a long time. All of a sudden, you and another WP:PW regular show up and decide consensus amongst yourselves in about a day or two and pass the thing, while still ignoring those issues. To start, you cherry-picked his autobiography to claim one particular birthdate while ignoring that Heenan contradicted himself later on in that very same source. The list of references contain multiple citations apiece to sources claiming that he was either 72 or 73 at the time of his death. If he wasn't 73 when he died, then those sources are unreliable because they didn't perform the necessary fact checking. That is what's at the very heart of claiming something to be a reliable source, not this attitude of "Why, it came from this website, so therefore...". If you actually go look at Heenan's autobiography and pay attention to the passage I referred to years ago, then Heenan was actually 77 or 78 when he died based on that claim, not 72 or 73. The other glaring credibility hole is claiming that Heenan won a PWI award in 1976 when PWI didn't exist in 1976. I'm sure there are others, but I don't have time to go through the article with a fine tooth comb, just like I didn't have the time to hang around and avert such a blatant hat-collecting exercise whenever it happened to occur. It just so happened I had a few moments yesteray to intervene in this case. So are you saying that I should have commented on the article talk page so it could be ignored and not interfered with the hat collecting? There are far too many corners of the encyclopedia where folks are being rewarded for pushing weak sources, all the while lowering the bar around the encyclopedia in general to the point where we should quit the charade of calling ourselves an encyclopedia when we're really trying to be just another news site copying every other news site. I see 33 references at present and I don't see anything which appears to be a contemporary account of the event. Are you going to tell me that it received zero press coverage at the time? I find that extremely hard to believe. Also, the Hart citation is still a dead-end link and not a properly formatted citation. That's called a shortcut. You're saying that the community should reward you for taking shortcuts and that's but one of many examples. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
This article has nothing to do with the article for Bobby Heenan. If you have an issue with that article, by all means put in a WP:GAR. I don't really see how the above contributes to issues over say edit warring, or it not being depth of coverage, however, that's by-the-by as it's got literatly nothing to do with this article. What this seems like is disrupting a GA nomination to make a point about another article.
The Hart citation is a book, I can remove the link, but that's what the template does. It hardly causes an issue with the article, and can very easy be solved - even so much as WP:BOLDly.
If you can find contemporary sources, please let me know, and I'll encorporate them. Hat collecting is the process of gaining different roles on wikipedia, and not the process of pushing for good articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)07:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
