Jump to content

Talk:Retribution (professional wrestling)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Retribution (professional wrestling)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Starting the review. Hope to have this done by the end of the weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    A few minor items have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    I do not see any remaining issues with these guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    References format looks fine to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Sources are generally reliable, and things are cited appropriately, and supported by their citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    Extensively cited throughout to reliable sources for the topic matter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    All good here. Only hits on Earwig are quotes. I'm just going off an Earwig check as essentially all sources are online and searchable by Earwig (no PDFs). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    We have a pretty full history of the group here. I don't see anything major missing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I do not see any issues with this criterion. The prose does not get into too much detail and remains focused on Retribution. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    From a reading of the article, I do not see any issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    I see some vandalism/disruptive editing in the history over the past few months, but not enough to be an issue for GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Non-free use rational needs filling out for the Retribution logo. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now been done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Both are relevant and appropriately captioned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I don't have any remaining comments; I'm going to pass this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't see any remaining issues and have promoted this nomination. If you wish to return the favor, I have a FAC and a few GANs up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Lee Vilenski (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • No problems with this Good Article. Hook fact is directly referenced (I prefer ALT1). Looks set for the Main Page! Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Onegreatjoke and Kingoflettuce: Okay, so, would either of you like to tell me why this small-time wrestling blog – in which the owner/"editor" seems to enjoy getting into public pissing contests with commenters – is considered reliable enough that we're just gonna reprint their claim that a wrestling group is like a highly controversial American movement that's not even an organization? On the main page? Like, I'm not the most well-versed in the reliability of various wrestling-based sources, but this one seems closer to the bottom of the barrel. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I first discovered professional wrestling when I was 12 or so. I was crushed to discover it wasn't real. Mil Máscaras was one of the stars at the time. I'm not sure WP:RS has much meaning in the context professional wrestling, but I'm with leeky on this; this needs a better source. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: How about "... that Retribution was mocked on their debut?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I shudder to go negative, given WP:DYK#gen4a, but if they are truly universally panned (and it's comparable to a comedy troupe, honestly), why not go all the way: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: ... that Retribution received an award for what WrestleCrap perceived as 2020's worst wrestling event?
  • ALT3: ... that Retribution was widely panned by critics and fans for everything about the group, except the performers?
I'd either try to find some better sourcing or remove it. Though, @Lee Vilenski: could help out here. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The site is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat to my surprise, when I looked up the review I found a serious review, covering all of the points that we require for a WP:RS. So, I'll restore the tick for ALT0 and ALT1. ALT2 and ALT3 need sources, so those are not (yet) approved. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Retribution_(professional_wrestling)&oldid=1205048122"