Talk:SummerSlam (1992)/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. I hope I have not taken on more than I can handle, as I have never reviewed a professional wrestling article before. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Background is a very confusing section. In comparing that section to the one in Lockdown (2008), I notice that in Lockdown the reader is oriented more as to the sequence of events by "The main event", "The other main rivalry heading", "One of the featured matches on the undercard", "The other main match on the undercard" etc. Would it be possible for you to organizing that section along these lines rather than repeating "The following match"?
• The same issue applies to Event where in Lockdown there "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" plus more orientation within the sections. (I realize I have mixed up the Background and the Event sections. Sorry! But do you get my point?)
• Is the number of stars given by visitors to Amazon.com considered a valid reference?
  • Perhaps not. It is included in many of the newly-expanded pay-per-view articles, but it doesn't really add a lot (especially to this article, which has a lot of commentary from more reliable sources). I removed it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The Road Warriors held the championship belts until Michael Hegstrand, who portrayed the character of Hawk..." - Although you mention Hawk previously, and wikilink him, you don't say he was a member of The Road Warriors. This is confusing to someone not familiar with these characters. (Please feel free to enlighten me on wrestling subjects, as I may be missing the issue.)
  • You're absolutely right. They were the Road Warriors in the NWA, but they were called the Legion of Doom in the WWF. I wasn't thinking, so I called the team the Legion of Doom the first time and then accidentally called them the Road Warriors after that. This is fixed now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• "the matches that took place at the event had pre-determined outcomes that had been decided by the promotion." Who is the promotion?
  • I changed it to "the WWF". GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps information like this could just be left out, since it adds more detail without significantly contributing information relevant to the article subject.

  "There was no significant buildup to the match between Crush and Repo Man. The two had teamed together, however, as part of the Demolition tag team, in which Barry Darsow, the man who portrayed Repo Man, had used the ring name Smash. The WWF's writers did not include this fact in the storyline, however."

  • I agree that this is more trivia than useful information, so I removed it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I will have limited access to the internet for part of the upcoming week, but I will definitely work to address all of your concerns. One thing that you may be able to offer a suggestion about: In the "Event" section, I'm not sure that "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" sections would work well, as WP:PW decided to add subsections on the assumption that all main event matches would come at the end of the event. The two main events at SummerSlam, however, were the sixth and eighth televised matches. I prefer the chronological flow, which would be disrupted by discussing matches 1 to 5, then match 7, then matches 6 and 8. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You should do whatever works best for your article. I could not follow it and I could follow Lockdown, so I was using it just as an example. I also know that the Lockdown article had a lot of work done on it when it was in GA review so it is the result of much effort.—Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. I'm still having some internet problems, but I should be able to finish this up pretty soon. If you could extend the hold a couple of days, I can address your concerns fully. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to do it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the background section to focus on the main events first. I'm not really sure what else to do with the event section, as I believe that chronological order makes for a more logical flow and eliminates the point of view decisions about what truly qualifies as a main event (as an illustration, I recently read a thread on a message board that discussed Wikipedia wrestling pay-per-views, in which several of the comments criticized the Taboo Tuesday (2004) article for including the Christy Hemme-Carmella DeCesare match as a "main event"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you did, it is much better and easier to follow. A great improvement. I have no problem following the story now. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Is there anything else left to be fixed, then? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've run through it and it seems fine. Passes GA.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)