Talk:Armageddon (2008)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Disclaimer: I am indeed a big wrestling fan and a frequent editor of professional wrestling articles but the only edits I've ever made to this article is upgrading three "questionable" sources to three reliable ones, nothing else. I am not a member of the Pro Wrestling project either and will review this without bias towards the subject. If you think this is a problem say so and I will withdraw stop reviewing this article. In the next day or so I will be reviewing the article and provide feedback. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright I'm posting comments as I read along.
Resolved Review comments on previous version of the article
|
---|
I've placed the GA nomination on hold, it has a lot of issues, mainly with the prose and I haven't mention all of them I'm sure, it'd be great if someone could not only address the points I've made but had a serious look at the match descriptions as they are definitely not GA level writing right now. This needs a lot of rewrites before it's ready. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
|
- I see that a whole lot of this is actually rewritten and much better than before. I don't think there is anything outstanding from my previous comments, but as it's had a major rewrite I will have to review it again. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay.--WillC 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright mostly new-ish article, mostly new-ish review
- Lead
- It's worded to indicate that Hardy/HHH/Edge was the only main event, wasn't the Cena/Jericho the co-main event?
- Fixed.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Several matches were featured on the undercard.", a very short sentence, almost a fragment could it not be merged with the mention of the Punk/Mysterio & Orton/Batista match. That would also eliminate the odd "were two featured" end to the next sentence. 2 birds, 1 stone.
- Fixed.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Factual error, Armageddon did not in itself gross 15.9 million in ticket sales, it didn't even gross 15.9 million at all - later on it's state that the WWE grossed 15.9 million in PPV revenue in 2008, Armageddon may have contributed to that (or it may have lost money) but it did not gross the entire amount.
- Okay, I've never delt with the gross stuff in PPVs, so this may take me a while to figure out.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Should be fixed.--WillC 05:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've never delt with the gross stuff in PPVs, so this may take me a while to figure out.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Background
- In the second paragraph you forgot to mention that it was the main rivalry of smackdown, not of the entire WWE.
- Fixed.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- a match involving three competitors known as a Triple Threat match in WWE for the" => "a match involving three competitors, known as a Triple Threat match in WWE, for the" - commas.
- Fixed.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do believe that the term "General Manager" is not exclusive to wrestling and will be understood by everyone if you just put that instead of "Primary authority figure"
- It has been agreed that General Manager is still jargon. The term may be used here and there outside of wrestling, but most people may not understand what a GM is.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, no need to remind me why I'm not a member of WP:PW, alright fair enough it's the "standard", I'll leave it be. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- It has been agreed that General Manager is still jargon. The term may be used here and there outside of wrestling, but most people may not understand what a GM is.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd recommend it be listed as a "Beat the Clock" challenge with quotation marks.
- Fixed.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Write time the same way through out, one place you have "12 minutes and 13 seconds (12:13)" and the rest it's just "12:13", is there really a point to writing it out the first time?
- I did that as an introduction. It may be common sense to understand that "12:13" is the time, but it is better to be safe than sorry.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good point, I've been preaching clarity so extra points for having it :) MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did that as an introduction. It may be common sense to understand that "12:13" is the time, but it is better to be safe than sorry.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- "As a result, neither" => "As a result of the tie, neither" just to make it crystal clear why no one was announced as the contender.
- Fixed.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- you don't have to say "won their respective singles matches" when you've already stated it was "four standard matches"
- Fixed.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Event.
- Do you know if the dark match was on the DVD? If so it may be worth noting so that the very small sectiong gets slightly more content to it.
- Noted.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- "and slammed him down to perform a chokeslam" => "and slammed him down with a chokeslam". You described the move and linked it, no need to over-complicate it.
- Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Intercontinental CHampionship contender tournament, not "Championship tournament".
- Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- "performing a knee strike to the face to complete a move called the Go To Sleep." => "performing a knee strike to the face , a move called the Go To Sleep." Again no need to over-complicate it, it just makes it harder to read
- Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC).
- "Batista followed by pinning Orton and becoming the victor of the encounter" - Again over-complicating it
- Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's misleading to place Batista/Orton and especially the divas match under the heading "Main event matches", this show had 2 main event matches, the other two need to go under "preliminary"
- Fixed. Mainly was give room to the Hardt picture and since Orton/Batista was one of the main matches.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see that now, but still it's more correct this way. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed. Mainly was give room to the Hardt picture and since Orton/Batista was one of the main matches.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are we writing the description of the finisher to give people an idea of what they are? because then I'm not sure "Holding the person upside down and slamming them face first" does justice to the Styles Clash.
- It is supposed to be giving the keys points to the move so people who don't know what the moves are can understand without going to the link. Plus the move names are considered jargon so they have to be explained out. It was agreed to cut down the descriptions to better fit the articles. The Styles Clash is a hard move to describe. So the hold upside down and slam face first is the shortest easiest way to describe it I believe.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Alright WP:PW policy and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is supposed to be giving the keys points to the move so people who don't know what the moves are can understand without going to the link. Plus the move names are considered jargon so they have to be explained out. It was agreed to cut down the descriptions to better fit the articles. The Styles Clash is a hard move to describe. So the hold upside down and slam face first is the shortest easiest way to describe it I believe.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Link to the aforementioned move isn't right, there is no subheader of that name.
- Fixed. Didn't know it was wrong.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey that's why I'm here :) I checked it out cause I was confused about what it was supposed to be. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed. Didn't know it was wrong.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Inflicting pain to Jerico's Face and back - forget the "areas" it's clear enough without it.
- Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Other finishing moves are explained but not the STFU? just where it hurts, not what it is.
- It is hard to explain the move without going in depth. Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Last match: Did HHH just let Hardy pin him? explanation needed for why HHH didn't just pin Edge after "forcing his head into the mat"
- I didn't know, but now I do. Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's an encylopedia, it's here to educate people on subjects - as such I think it would be nice to tell people that the "front flip" is the Swanton - heck even wrestling fans may not think it was the same move.
- Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reception
- The source states that the 2007 Armageddon got 237.000 buys, you state 350.000
That's what I've found, a much smaller "laundry list" than the previous article. Good work so far. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright it looks much better, one last read through and if I don't find anything major (doubtful) I'll promote to GA later today, good work Will. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've read it, nothing jumped out so I'm promoting it to GA, congratulations. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a pure joke, it is NOT a Good Article and should not have been promoted. First, there is the name issues. Wrestlinglover is obsessed with going against guidelines and policies by listing every wrestler by their real name regardless of how well known they are (and ignoring me pointing out how wrong he is, we do not do this for actors and musicians who don't use their real name. My prime example is Tom Cruise, when talking about him we write "Tom Cruise" and not "Thomas Mapother IV". Same thing applies here with Triple H, he uses that name even outside of wrestling and is never called under his real name. He is even credited in the movie "Blade: Trinity" as Triple H). This article should be de-listed immediately (this is the problem with letting anybody review GA nominees, you can end up having articles promoted when they clearly should not be promoted). TJ Spyke 14:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- And a good day to you as well, if you read the comments I insisted that this article was consistent, either all names nor no names - I'd prefer no "real names" at all as I find it nothing but trivial but there seems to be a consensus from the project you're a member off TJ that putting the real names makes it more accessible to non-fans, take it up with your project that they insist on the "ring name (real name)" construction at all, I'm just saying that if it's a rule it has to be consistent and you guys never did anything but create a vague definition of when it's there and when it's not. Oh and have a pleasant day sunshine. In conclusion - your problem is with policy, not this article and frankly I can't be bothered to do anything else about it, get the policy changed and I'm sure Will will be happy to change it. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh and I think you need to be clearer, you mean "this is the problem with letting people who disagree with TJ Spyke" review GA's. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- The semi-consensus (a lot of members disagree with it and think we don't need to list real names) at WP:PW is to use the most common name the wrestler is known as (and to only use real names if the wrestler is relatively new or has been well known by multiple names, like how Dustin Runnels has been well known both as Dustin Rhodes and as Goldust), Wrestlinglover just disagrees with that. I would switch the article to just ringnames, but then Wrestlinglover would just revert and claim some BS about that not being OOU. When I tried switching the article back to the standards set by WP:PW, Will just reverted it. As for your second comment, that just shows your immaturity and another reason to restrict who can review GA-nominees.
- You may have noticed that it was me that said either all have real names or none, as long as it's consistent - so don't blame Will for it being "all names". I'd rather see no real names, I think that listing their real names is just trivia, but that does not seem to be the semi-quasi-sorta policy so it's nothing I can do to change it. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)