Talk:The Gobbledy Gooker

The Gobbledy Gooker has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 3, 2021. (Reviewed version).

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Professional wrestling Low‑importance

	The Gobbledy Gooker 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.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Gobbledy Gooker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 11:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of wrestling's most obscure characters. Will take a deeper look into the article over the week, but two things that should be added right of the bat:

an infobox, f.e. for fictional characters or the one for wrestlers that lists all information on the character (debut, who portrayed him etc.)
a "Creation and conception" section, e.g. what was the general idea behind the character, why was the costume chosen etc. The legacy section already contains some of that, should be moved.

Aside from that, the article looks fine at first glance.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Feel free to take your time, I've made the changes you've suggested so far.LM2000 (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

Lead

"The character is a turkey mascot, portrayed by a wrestler in a bird costume." --> rephrase that, saying that a turkey character is portrayed in a bird costume seems self-explanatory to me.
- Merged with introductory sentence, I think it reads better.
I would start a new paragraph beginning with "It subsequently"
- Done

Development

Concept and creation should be a level 2 headline as per manual of style.
- Done
Point out that Survivor Series takes place around Thanksgiving, hence the turkey.
- Done
Are there specific sources relating to the design of the costume? I might be wrong, but I vaguely remember that they made certain design choices so that Guererro could wrestle in full costume...
- I've read (and put in the article) that they always wanted him to be a wrestler. But Guerrero talks about having trouble seeing out of the head. There must be a story about miscommunication between WWF and the costume makers but I'm not sure if it has been told publicly.
I would include a picture of the egg or even a GIF of the Gooker hatching in the article, as it is mentioned a lot. Maybe replace Gulak or Guererro.
- Done. I moved Guerrero's picture to Legacy, since he's mentioned many times. Let me know if you don't think it belongs though.
"mostly without incident" means without getting booed? Could need some clarification.
- Rephrased.
"Gimmick Battle Royale" link the word gimmick to the corresponding article.
- Done
Put everything relating to Gulak into one paragraph.
- Done

Legacy

Use some hedge/bridge words like furthermore etc. Most sentences start with "XY listed/called" etc. Switch things up a bit.
- Done
Did the Gooker appear in video games, as an NPC or playable character? If so, it should be listed.
- It looks like people create him sometimes but no official releases. There was apparently an action figure that appeared at some convention at one point. I'm not sure if it was a joke or not but it never got released and no sources reported on it, otherwise I would've mentioned it.
  - Well, it was worth a try, I thought he might be one of the few hundred playable characters in the newer games...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, only a few minor things to be addressed.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

All sources check out and are reliable, partly reliable sources such as Bleacher Report were chosen with care.

Nevertheless, I would source the claim that it was intended to be a long-running character in Hector Guerrero portrayal, paragraph 2.

--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased to something that was already sourced and established.LM2000 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

Agree--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it neutral?

Agree--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is it stable?

Agree As the character only appears every few Thanksgivings, yes.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated?

Agree Everything about the pictures checks out. As mentioned earlier, think about replacing one of them with the egg. Or move Guerrero and Gulak into one picture and add the egg.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

The article should pass as soon as the points above are addressed.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Thanks again.LM2000 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I've passed your article just now.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]