Talk:Randy Orton

GA Reassessment

Randy Orton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Another wrestling page that got a GA nearly 20 years ago but over the years has fallen well below what's expected from a GA in my eyes.

• Article is bloated with superfluous detail, and is well over 12,000 words.
• Article isn't very engaging, it's primarily just a string of repetitive "And then at the PPV Randy did this. And then on the next episode of Raw, Randy did this. And then..." . This also means there's some paragraphs that are just gigantic walls of dense text that I can't seriously believe many are sitting down to read (The Authority/Legacy sections for example).
• No coverage of Randy's reception from critics and the wrestling world, except a WP:PEACOCK in the second sentence of the lede declaring him one of the best wrestlers ever and using the likes of WWE-only lists and top-5 lists to prove it (including a perennial source violation through sportskeeda). I don't see how you can say an article covers a wrestler to GA standard without a section dedicated to this.
• Plenty of citation needed tags, including some that have been there for over five years.

In general, I would say many of the WWE-related GAs need a review, but this is the one that caught my eye recently as it's particularly egregious. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It's the problem with pro wrestlers. With every new week we have more problems. GA should be only for retired or dead wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

While I think the article will be demoted, I reduced the 12.000 words to 9.818. There is plenty of room for summarize. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• @HHH Pedrigree: When reviewing the article, I found some uncited statements and unreliable sources. Would you be interested in addressing these? If so, you can ping me and I'll give more details. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.