Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Becky Lynch/archive1

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2018 [1].

Becky Lynch edit

Nominator(s): Ikhtiar H (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a female professional wrestler known as Becky Lynch. This article is a part of WikiProject: Professional wrestling, which I am a member of. I believe this meets the style and guidelines of the wikiproject and is ready to be FA. Feel free to leave any constructive criticism and suggestions. Ikhtiar H (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - not enough info in the lede about her WWE career. This is clearly the most notable part of her career, and there is two sentences (1 on being called up, and the second going main roster and winning the belt).

In an FA, I'd want info on her style whilst wrestling, and what critics say. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski the section, In wrestling is removed from the wikiproject's style. If you are talking about her wrestling persona, I will try to work on it. It would be difficult to find relevant information from reliable sources since her popularity rose really suddenly this year; before she had relatively less known in the context of pro wrestling. I don't think not having the section of Professional wrestling persona affect its quality (look at Shelton Benjamin and Bobby Eaton), as long as her persona is briefly mentioned inside her career section. As for the lead, I can spice things up a little by adding stuff like she being in the first ever women's TLC match if it works. Ikhtiar H (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - On first glance I'm concerned with sections suffering from WP:PROSELINE and choppy sentences not forming a cohesive narrative ("On this date this happened. Then on this date this happened." etc). This doesn't meet the standards required of criterion 1a and I'd have to oppose on those grounds. I recommend you withdraw this for further preparation and possible Peer Review. --Laser brain (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain as you wish. I respect your opinion. I trust you since you are an admin. The question is how do I really withdraw this? Just remove it and the tag from it's talk page, like just pretend it never happened (it sounds depressing)? What will happen the next time my nominate this? Will the archive number change? ~If you have to do immediate failure, feel free to do so. Ikhtiar H (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My being an admin has no bearing, just offering my opinion as a fellow editor. If you do wish to withdraw it, we can archive it and the next time you nominate, it would be archive2. There is no stigma on taking some more time to work on it, so don't worry about that. --Laser brain (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain yes you can archive it. I became too hasty. Peer reviews are great but they kind of take time. Thanks for your time and hopefully this will be re-nominated in the near future. Ikhtiar H (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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