Talk:Elimination Chamber/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"weighs over 10 tons" It's best to use {{convert}} for this. You need to convert all of the imperial measurements in the article to give it a worldwide view. There are quite a few un converted measurements in the article. Even so, a non-breaking space should be typed between numbers and units. For example, you wrote "US$225" This happens several times in the article. Common words such as "steel" "folding chair" "barbed wire" and "baseball bat" do not need wikilinking.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Words to watch: "several designs for the Elimination Chamber were considered" Several is too vague. How many designs were there? "number of Elimination Chamber matches to date" The word "to date" becomes outdated and should be re worded or removed all together. "Hell in a Cell was a taller roofed version that surrounded the ring and ringside area on the ground rather than the apron" How much taller? Can you specify this? It makes the article less vague. Instead of having "Ref" in the table, I think it would make the table flow better if you just placed it after the location. "Sheamus reportedly suffered a concussion during the Raw Elimination Chamber match in 2010." This statement is too vague. Who gave him the concussion? Did he go to hospital? Who reported that he had a concussion?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Web references need the publishing date. The following references need their publishing date: 1, 17, 20, 36, 37, 38, 39. Reference 35 needs author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The section match history should have some citations, for example "several designs for the Elimination Chamber were considered" I want to know how many designs from the source you used. Too many primary sources, third party sources help make the article more reliable. I could understand if it was just a few, but most of the sources are primary. Ref 1, 2, 4, 5 , 7 , 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38. This makes me question the notability of the whole article, this is a major problem.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image "File:TEST.jpg" has no caption. What is this image of? Why is it important? It seems to be of low quality.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am sorry, this article is not currently ready for good article status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it please renominate at WP:GAN. I am sure it will pass after these issues have been corrected.