Talk:Acolytes Protection Agency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Acolytes Protection Agency has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
Acolytes Protection Agency is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Source list issue
Although at first glance the article appears to have many sources (103 separate listings, not counting repeated citations of the same item), many of them are different citations from the same underlying source — 33/103 from The Other Arena, 24/103 from PWWEW.net, 20/103 from Online World of Wrestling, and 17/103 from the WWE itself. There are no print sources at all, so nearly as I can tell. Don't get me wrong; I don't know that there's anything in the good article criteria that says you have to have published sources, only reliable and verifiable ones, and for different fields there are somewhat different standards on what is an authoritative source. I just am uncomfortable and wanted to suggest that editors look to see if there are any additional sources to expand the pool a bit. Lawikitejana (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well to WP:PW, the above sources are all reliable because they are not false-reporting, speculating websites like WrestlZone. I however am unclear on what point you are trying to get across, are you saying that the article needs a print source, are you saying that the above websites are unreliable, or what?--~SRS~ 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. To answer your question: No, I'm not saying they're unreliable — I don't have a PW background and would defer to WP:PW on that. I'm new to reviewing GAs and have only just started trying after nearly two years of editing, though I have yet to see one I felt competent to review. The only reason I'm even viewing the article is that it's at the top of the backlog for the GA nominees, and I can't help noticing that its source list is unlike any of the GAs that I've seen, though admittedly those are in other fields. I only wanted (a) to suggest that if there are print sources, it would enhance the article to add them; and (b) to make sure that others coming to review the article would give more than a cursory glance at the size of the source list, actually looking at what the sources are. So long as all those sources meet the standards for good articles — and you've said they do — no problem at all. Lawikitejana (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh ok. But I dont have a print source available, mayby if someone else does, they can add it later, but are you officially reviewing the article?~SRS~ 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, I keep looking at articles that I think I might be able to review, but either they look like good articles to me until I read their Talk pages and discover they have really complicated problems I don't feel prepared to assess, OR they seem to me to be lacking but I think there's leeway to say I'm wrong, and therefore don't pass judgment against them. We'll see if I ever find one I feel I can judge! Lawikitejana (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did find you one printed source, now added. It was about the April 2003 win, and I wanted to put who they won the title from, because it says the previous holders had had it for less than a month, but I can't make heads or tails to be able to see how to refer to the people from whom they took it.Lawikitejana (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, I keep looking at articles that I think I might be able to review, but either they look like good articles to me until I read their Talk pages and discover they have really complicated problems I don't feel prepared to assess, OR they seem to me to be lacking but I think there's leeway to say I'm wrong, and therefore don't pass judgment against them. We'll see if I ever find one I feel I can judge! Lawikitejana (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh ok. But I dont have a print source available, mayby if someone else does, they can add it later, but are you officially reviewing the article?~SRS~ 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. To answer your question: No, I'm not saying they're unreliable — I don't have a PW background and would defer to WP:PW on that. I'm new to reviewing GAs and have only just started trying after nearly two years of editing, though I have yet to see one I felt competent to review. The only reason I'm even viewing the article is that it's at the top of the backlog for the GA nominees, and I can't help noticing that its source list is unlike any of the GAs that I've seen, though admittedly those are in other fields. I only wanted (a) to suggest that if there are print sources, it would enhance the article to add them; and (b) to make sure that others coming to review the article would give more than a cursory glance at the size of the source list, actually looking at what the sources are. So long as all those sources meet the standards for good articles — and you've said they do — no problem at all. Lawikitejana (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA nomination
Hello. You've been waiting a long time for a review. I've expanded the lead and fixed some typos. Overall, I think this covers a lot of details but the main storyline was obscured. How did these two join up (real life or kayfabe)? If they were a successful, popular team, why were they split with the brand split? In general, what is their larger significance to the storyline? This could use another copyedit (the phrasing is a bit awkward in places), and if you could add any more out-of-storyline info, it would help. (A completely optional observation: many of the references come in pairs, one from PWWEW and one from OWOW, but they're only used once; have you ever considered combining them?) Finally, the fair use image of the duo includes the logo; can you really justify fair use for the logo alone a second time? Gimmetrow 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- They were split basically because the brand extension consisted of random drafts, and they were drafted randomly to different brands. All part of the draft concept. What can be added about outside of storylines? Outside of the APA, they are good friends and thats about it. There is no need for a personal lives section, thats what their respective article is for. Also, yes because the logo was just cut from the logo, signifying a different image. I see your point about info outside of storylines, but the thing is they have no personal business together, they are too separate people, which is what their respective articles are for, you understand what I'm trying to say? (I feel like I am awkwardly wording it)--SRX 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unlike the Briscoe Brothers, a GA, who are actual brothers and have more info about their personal lives, since they do almost everything together, similar to the The Hardys, but Simmons and Layfield have separate business, like Layfield is a talk show host, and Simmons is a college football hall of famer (nothing related here).--SRX 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand. This is an article about a fictional duo. I'm asking if there is any info about their place in the storyline other than the storyline itself. For instance, why did WWE write them into the storyline? Were they to appeal to a certain market? Were they necessary counterpoint to some other part of the story WWE wanted to pursue? Did the two people come up with the storyline and gimmicks, or the WWE writers? Things like that. Gimmetrow 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well thats explained, in the beginning I added how they formed, why, and who. For the APA, I added who's Idea it was. Also they were put together basically because their careers as single competitors was going nowhere (explained in the article).--SRX 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looking better. I think this would need a lot more out-of-storyline info to approach FAC, but it passes GA. Please think about the referencing though, since three different editors brought it up. Gimmetrow 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well thats explained, in the beginning I added how they formed, why, and who. For the APA, I added who's Idea it was. Also they were put together basically because their careers as single competitors was going nowhere (explained in the article).--SRX 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand. This is an article about a fictional duo. I'm asking if there is any info about their place in the storyline other than the storyline itself. For instance, why did WWE write them into the storyline? Were they to appeal to a certain market? Were they necessary counterpoint to some other part of the story WWE wanted to pursue? Did the two people come up with the storyline and gimmicks, or the WWE writers? Things like that. Gimmetrow 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unlike the Briscoe Brothers, a GA, who are actual brothers and have more info about their personal lives, since they do almost everything together, similar to the The Hardys, but Simmons and Layfield have separate business, like Layfield is a talk show host, and Simmons is a college football hall of famer (nothing related here).--SRX 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Over-referencing
I think the article might be over-referenced. There is absolutely no need to cite every match win/loss with two or more sources, when one will prove the info. Nikki311 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that may be true. Should all double refs be removed?SRX 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
