Talk:The Bella Twins/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I came across this page because I noticed it was a GA with multiple cleanup tags. After looking into it more closely, I think this currently has some major GACR issues, especially related to verifiability. As a random sample, I looked at the first 10 references whose ref number was a multiple of 5. 8 of them appear to be permanently dead. i.e. the provided URL no longer works, and no usable version has been archived on the wayback machine. Since it appears these were only ever published online, not in print, they are lost to the world forever, and not appropriate verification (unless someone can find somewhere other than the wayback machine where they've been archived).

There are also some issues with the quality of some of the sources used, but I'll start with just the dead links issue, since that's already a big piece of work. Colin M (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, in case the significance of the dead links is controversial, let me throw out a couple other issues:

• Something like "In 2016 they appeared in a YouTube video with so-and-so" should generally have a secondary source indicating that this is a noteworthy thing, and ideally should be integrated into the article prose in a way that communicates its contextual relevance to the reader. (WP:GACR 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail")
• The "Professional wrestling career" section arguably runs afoul of WP:WAF, in that it's a very long, detailed summary of fictional storylines.

Colin M (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have created a new version of the pro wrestling career, User:HHH Pedrigree/The Bella Twins, with less In-Universe and notable events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool, that definitely is looking like an improvement. But what do you think about the issue of permanently dead links? The draft you linked still includes a lot of citations pointing to canoe.ca links which are no longer accessible and not archived on the wayback machine. So it seems like there's no way to verify that these are reliable sources that back up the cited content. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

of course, dead links are a problem. I will try to include other links --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I'm thinking of closing this soon, since it's been open for more than two weeks. But if you plan on trying to address the GA issues further within the next few days, let me know and I'll keep it open. Colin M (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

okey. Tomorrow I will travel to the beach. But once I take a nap after the travel, I will fix the links --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I can do the work. The computer is too slow and i'm not confortable with such a work. There is any problem to lose the GA status, fix the issues in September and nominate the article again? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for being understanding, and good luck with the re-nomination if that's what you choose to do. Colin M (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)