Talk:No Mercy (2007)/GA1

GA Review

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

Review

Starting preliminary review now. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 13:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - Look at what I had to do. This article isn't ready. Please comb through it and check for other errors such as WP:POV, tenses, and wrestling terminology that the average reader of Wikipedia wouldn't understand. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...that was pretty bad. I did some copyediting, and hopefully, someone else will look over it, too. In the meantime, is there any specific terminology you would like explained? Nikki311 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's all I can find right now. You did a pretty good job clearing up. I will continue the review tomorrow when I have a bit more time. But after the tidy up edits it looks okay. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to Save US Y2J, the nominator of the article. He does not have a computer at the moment so he will not be on for a little while. He told me he'll get on when he has his computer back. I thought to announce it here that he can not be part of the review right now, I was hoping it can wait till he returns?--WillC 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all due respect to Save Us Y2J and the reviewer, this article is not ready to become a Good article. One, because it does not comply with WP:PLOT, WP:FICTION, and WP:IN-U policies. See the good article, Backlash (2003), it is in In-U but is not as much as this article. See Bad Blood (2003), a GA that has FA potential.--S _R X 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRX, perhaps you could point out some specific problems, as per policy votes are normally unhelpful as it doesn't say specifically what's wrong with an article. iMatthew 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until Y2J returns, perhaps he can take SRX's points and run with them. Any idea when he'll be back? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He told me his computer is being worked on. It might be a few days or so, I don't really know. Just when he gets it back he'll come online.--WillC 18:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie, someone buzz me when some major changes have been made. Someone keep an eye on it too, we wouldn't want it slipping back to the way it was... Heaven forbid! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to do a copyedit on the article since I told him I would a few weeks ago. I have time so that will probably be the only changes till he comes back.--WillC 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in keeping this article on hold until Y2J is able to get back online. If Scarian and SRX want to leave a list of things to be fixed, I'll go ahead and start tackling them. Nikki311

I'll help as well. It would be better than letting this thing just sit.--WillC 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with the lead:

"The first featured wrestlers from the Raw brand fighting in a match in which the wrestler who was unable to respond to a ten count by the referee would lose between WWE Champion Triple H and Randy Orton." - Even from the context of the previous sentence it is still difficult to comprehend the meaning of that. Can anyone make it clearer?
These type of things need to be double checked. They're relatively simple mistakes to make but they look awful to readers (sorry to be picky)
And this needs a source. It could just be that that information came from the Canadian Explorer site again but I don't want to meddle in those sorts of things just in case I screw up.

That's all I have time for unfortunately, I'll continue possibly on sunday night or monday. Have a good weekend all. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those three are

Done. Nikki♥311 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Nikki. Now we have another user coming in with this; which, of course, is the largest and most important section in the article. The next step would be finding out what is contradictory (by asking him/her; it was unhelpful of them not to explain the tag) and then obviously correcting it. I don't want to fail this article, to be honest; too many people have put too much work into it, so we just have to get it right. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What terrible timing!! I contacted the user on his/her talk page [1]. Hopefully they will respond rather quickly. Nikki♥311 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. The picture caption said that Triple H won the championship from Orton, which was confusing because they had two matches that night (with both of them winning the championship during one of them). I believe I clarified everything, so I removed the tag. Nikki♥311 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Good follow up, Nikki. Okay, did anyone look into SRX's fiction/in-universe concerns? I think everything is generally okay in terms of that, but, you know, gotta please them all. It's 2:30 am here so I'll stop back tomorrow. Night! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now in compliance with WP:IN-U, ~~the only thing I see is too much detail per WP:PLOT~~, but other than that It has GA potential now.--S R X 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(out-dent) I'll go through and remove some of the non-important details in the next day or so (meanwhile, I'm working on 2 other GAN reviews and have school and work, too). At this point, though, I wouldn't be surprised if the article was tagged for deletion tomorrow. That would only be another delay in getting this article through this review. :) Nikki♥311 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the WP:PLOT, after Nikki removed many unimportant details, the article now meets the GA criteria to the fullest and WP:PW/MOS.--S R X 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]