Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Randy Savage/archive1

Randy Savage edit

OK. Yes, this is weird! However, during the 80’s and 90’s, Savage was an icon in entertainment wrestling. Millions of people know his name, but not much more than the character he has portrayed in wrestling entertainment. His unique voice, flamboyance in and outside of the ring, and his years as a wrestling superstar make him interesting as a candidate for featured article. This article really goes deep into this man’s life, and shows a different side of the Macho Man Randy Savage most people never knew about – his career in minor league baseball, rap album, etc. for example.

A very well written and interesting article, if I do say so myself. Mikecnn 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it has potential but it has no references - these are mandatory. Section headers should not be wikilinked. Trivia section should be absorbed into the article. If it's not worth saying in the article itself, chances are it's not worth saying at all. Needs a copyedit to improve writing. There are many examples of "&" being used. These should all be substituted with "and". The lead paragraph should also be expanded as a brief summary of the article itself. I'll read through it more carefully when these obvious faults are dealt with. Rossrs 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct me if Iam wrong, but shouldn't the article be called Randall Mario Poffo or Randall Poffo? Names like Mankind, Triple H, The Undertaker, Booker T, Scotty 2 Hotty...etc etc do not go by their stage names. It seems that only SSSA and the Rock have done so. Think about redirecting the article, it seems the way to go for Wrestler articles. Forever young 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Insufficient lead, improperly formatted references (no inline references), two images are not tagged and provide no rationale for fair use, bad formatting (including links on section titles, instead of proper "Main article: xxx" summary style) trivia section is a disorganized list of statements without source. This is not a valid FAC. Phils 17:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What Rossrs and Phils said. Plus the article is written in an inappropriate tone, and makes many judgements that would be better left to the reader. It should go through a peer review before being nominated for featured article. JoaoRicardo^talk 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]