Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bobby Eaton

Bobby Eaton

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a really well written, well sourced article. It's been reviewed and copyedited by numerous editors and it's got sources, format etc. down pat. It's a great article all in all MPJ-DK 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Davnel03 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral The article has improved a great deal since it was nominated. I think some sections could still use a bit of a copyedit, but overall it has become a nice article and appears to be very comprehensive and understandable to non-wrestling fans. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I think the article needs a good copyediting by someone who isn't a wrestling fan. I've tried to highlight phrases that weren't immediately clear and also point out a few places where the prose did not flow well, but I would recommend that you get the League of Copyeditors to take a look at it. There is a lot of overall wordiness (using three sentences when one would do, or five words instead of two) as well as some passages that read more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article.
  • In the first paragraph of the lead, every sentence begins with "Eaton" or "He". Can this be mixed up a bit?
    •  Done Nikki311 00:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any information on his early life that does not relate to wrestling? Is there information on his parentage or whether he has siblings? Any information on why he wanted to become a wrestler?
    • I got nothing at all, not even unreliable sources :( MPJ-DK 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • It was worth asking...if the information isn't available, then it obviously can't be included. Karanacs
  • Need a source for the fact that he trained under Tojo Yamamoto (last sentence of paragraph under Wrestling career)
    •  Done GaryColemanFan 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what this means "elevate Eaton's name up the card position in the promotion "
    •  Done Clarified by linking to the definition of card. Nikki311 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of early career seems really choppy and doesn't flow well.
    •  Done Nikki311 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "first title win ever" is redundant
    •  Done GaryColemanFan 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is their information on why Eaton stopped working with Poffo and decided to work with Gulas (and is that Gulas related to Nick Gulas)?
    •  Done No information that I know of no, definitely nothing reliable or "Neutral". George Gulas is Nick Gulas' son (which I'm adding to the article, good point) MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • After the first time the article mentions someone, that person should only be referred to by their surname. That means that instead of "Bobby Eaton" he should be referred to only as "Eaton".
    •  Done Nikki311 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Need a citation for the last sentence of first paragraph in section As a single competitor which refers to "world wide fame"
    •  Done I'd a dope for not realizing that. The chapter in the book in general supports the "world wide fame" statement as they're known to wrestling fans world wide, even today. MPJ-DK 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "found himself working" does not seem like good prose -> could it be "Worked"?
    •  Done GaryColemanFan 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This sentence doesn't work "During his early days in the promotion, Eaton often faced the young Stan Lane in tag team competition, a person that would appear again later in Eaton's career"
    •  Done Nikki311 04:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "It was decided that Eaton and Sugar should split up"...who decided?
  • First paragraph of Midnight Express section doesn't flow well
    •  Done Nikki311 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How did the series of matches against the Rock n Roll Express differ "from the way tag team wrestling was traditionally presented"?
    •  Done The explanation of how it differed is a bit "wrestling fan" centric, so I re-wrote it to be about how well received the series of matches were, something which is more easily accessible to fans and non fans alike. MPJ-DK 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of Midnight Express section is not sourced and doesn't appear to actually add much to the section. I'd remove it.
    •  Done Nikki311 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of National spotlight section does not flow well. "left JCP from one day to the next" doesn't make sense, and "Enter a man from Eaton's past" seems a little too melodramatic for an encyclopedia article. I think you could distill this paragraph down to "In early 1987 Condrey left JCP for undisclosed reasons, and "Sweet" Stan Lane took his place as part of the Midnight Express." Then add the next paragraph in.
    •  Done Nikki311 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "after teaming for only a few months, the combination of Eaton and Lane" is a little wordy
    •  Done Nikki311 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's usually not good to have a see also in the middle of a sentence. Either reword to be a part of the sentence or leave out the Brain Busters part)
    •  Done Nikki311 00:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Express' should be Express's (see WP:MOS#Possessives)
    • The link seems to indicate that either is fine, as long as it's consistent throughout the article. GaryColemanFan 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "it was the end of an era in tag team wrestling" seems a little unnecessary and POVish - can it go?
    •  Done Nikki311 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • " proving to everyone " is weaselly
    •  Done Nikki311 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Why was that his "biggest night as a singles wrestler"?
    •  Done Changed it to "highest profile match as a singles wrestler" GaryColemanFan 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Need citations for second paragraph of fired and hired section - Benoit's first stint, "series of good matches", and the way they were used, as well as "never showed any signs of being considered as a permanent team" all need to be cited.
    •  Done Changed the subjective "looked good" line and cited it. MPJ-DK 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Need a citation for the fact that he rejected the snob gimmick, because he could have left for other reasons.
    •  Done I should have made it clear that he rejected it "in storyline terms", since otherwise it indicates that it was Eaton's own wish to end it and not a booked decission. Good catch MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Need a citation for last paragraph of Blue Bloods - "wreselted mainly ...to help make stars higher on the card than him look good"
    •  Done I changed the wording so that it's not the subjective "look good" phrase to mainly indicate that he lost to wrestlers who the promotion were pushing. MPJ-DK 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Need citation for first paragraph of after WCW section -> "select independent wrestling cards"
    •  Done the OVW profile page provides an overview of the "Midnight Express Retirement tour" dates and as such works as a reference. MPJ-DK 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The personal section does not flow well between paragraphs
  • Do you have page numbers for the book citations? It is best to include page numbers so that it is easier for people to verify the information.
    • I do have the page numbers, well I will once I dig the book out of whatever box I stuck it in. Is a page range okay since most of the information is from one chapter? MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    •  DoneI added the page range and the chapter I found stuff in and made specific citations if I got information from other chapters. MPJ-DK 15:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that a reference may have been improperly formatted, as this appears in the main body of the article;"</ref name=tagbook>". Other than this minor error it looks really well written --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup I messed that up, but I fixed it again MPJ-DK 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In whichc case, I Support --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I believe that this article meets the criteria for Featured Articles. It give a comprehensive description of Eaton's career (and personal life, where information is available) in a neutral and well-written article. It is well-sourced, and I can't find any problems with MOS guidelines. GaryColemanFan 04:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - the subject matter is trivial and badly written eg ...Eaton is known as a generous and genuinely nice man. Who says? Even if he doesn't have any character traits that are less than exemplary does this sort of "fact" belong in a encyc? Albatross2147 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you had continued reading, that statement is sourced by two books in the next two sentences. Is the subject matter as a whole trivial and demeaning? Do you have any constructive criticism to improve the "bad" writing? Your comments (including the ones on Talk:Montreal Screwjob, another wrestling-related Featured Article that you have commented as being badly written and trivial) would be better if they including suggestions for improving the articles, not just putting them down. Nikki311 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The "triviality" of this article is because it's about "Pro wrestling"? Not an objection I can take seriously, sorry. And "badly written" is apparently your definition of "supported by citations"? Your objection is not about the actual language, format or anything else - you object to the subject, not the content. How can I take that seriously? MPJ-DK 13:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Albatross2147, it's pretty obvious you hate professional wrestling. Please don't attempt to disrupt FAC's by making a point. Davnel03 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposes based on subject matter are entirely irrelevant, inherently biased, and by definition made in bad faith. You have already demonstrated your bias against wrestling, and your feeling that pro wrestling articles should not be featured. I hate to break your heart, but this is a neutral encyclopedia; all articles are given an equal chance. Becoming featured is not about what the article is about; it is about how well it is written. Unless you can definitively demonstrate that this is a poorly written article, then your vote is irrelevant. The Hybrid T/C 19:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - LAX 14:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Very well done article. FamicomJL 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Good article (And I've had a word with Albatross and Excalibur....) Vampire Warrior 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, well sourced. Bmg916^Speak 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - despite the threats left on my talk page by the charming Vampire Warrior I want to point out in the interest of fairness and balance that the article is not comprehensive in that it does not seem to mention that the subject has not been tainted by any suggestion of steriod use unlike his tag team chums. Albatross2147 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I have not looked over your talk page, but I will go on the record as saying that I do not condone threats in any form against any user, and any users who practice such things should be ashamed of themselves for potentially damaging the credibility of the other members in their project. Anyway, it seems pointless to point out things that haven't happened. I could list some examples, but I can't figure out how to word them in a way that won't sound sarcastic. I will say that it isn't notable that he hasn't been accused of steroid use, since the number of wrestlers that haven't vastly outnumber those that have been accused of such things. The Hybrid T/C 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That he's not been "tainted" is original research, find a source that specifically says "Bobby Eaton has not been linked to steroids", otherwise it can't be added. And weren't you complaining about trivia? Since that's what it is. I'm failing to see the "fairness & balance" in that, we can throw in that he's never been accused of molesting children nor has he in any way been linked to Nazi war crimes. MPJ-DK 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I was going to say cross dresser, or transsexual, but that seemed like a bad idea :P, so I didn't. The Hybrid T/C 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • LOL I've never let the fact that something was a bad idea stop me ;) MPJ-DK 07:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - because the subject matter is really boring and I nearly fell asleep following the obscure twists and turns of this man's stage managed and completely mediocre career as a showman. If failure is the same as notability, then this career scores 10/10. Excalibur 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm just going to paraphrase what The Hybrid said above in response to opposes based on the subject matter itself,

Opposes based on subject matter are entirely irrelevant, inherently biased, and by definition made in bad faith. You are clearly showing your bias against professional wrestling, and your feeling that pro wrestling articles should not be featured. This is a neutral encyclopedia; all articles are given an equal chance. Becoming featured is not about what the article is about; it is about how well it is written. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and to show your inherent bias toward a particular subject matter. The subject matter may not be boring at all to others. Thank you. Bmg916^Speak 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bmg. Indeed, the subject of the article is entirely irrelevant, unless it is deletion material, which it is not. This is to judge how well it is written, and making the argument that this article doesn't deserve to be featured because it is about a wrestler is like saying someone doesn't deserve to be paid because they are black. I grow weary of these subjectist arguments. Perhaps we should set up a form of Featured Article Affirmative Action to make sure these arguments never rear their discriminatory heads ever again. The Hybrid T/C 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support It seems to follow the guidelines and it is well written. --Crazy4metallica 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I as many will agree think he was a good wrestler, I however think he's not noteworthy enough for a featured artilce. If my dad who's watched wrestling for something like 30-40 years can't remember him why would someone from todays genderation no who he was their too young, unless they started watching it when they were just little. --Crash Underride 17:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter that your dad doesn't remember him? Is that the grounds for notability? Because I'd take a wild guess and say that there are several FA's that shouldn't have become FA's just because someone hasn't "heard" of them. I for one, have never heard of Sophie Blanchard, Honoré de Balzac, or Karnataka, and yet all three of those articles are FA's that in this month have appeared on the main page. Does that make them any less worthy of being FA's? The answer is a resounding, catergorically "NO". I've never heard of this guy either, and neither has my dad, who was watching wrestling since before Hogan rose to prominence, and yet that doesn't mean this article is not worthy of FA. Please, to all people that do not like pro wrestling: DO NOT RESPOND. Your bias, quite honestly, reminds me of the problem the United Nations faced during the Cold War. It was very hard for them to get anything done because the US and the Soviet Union would keep vetoing each other because they were biased against each other. That's what I see here. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, my vote is Support -- the article is well-written, well-sourced, and easy to read. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.