Talk:WrestleMania XXIV/GA1

GA Review

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

Initial Comments: This article passes the quick-fail criteria...the references look to be in great shape...picture copyrights seem to check out. It's obvious that a lot of time has been spent on the references; not only is everything well cited in the article, but info about who wrote the article, who the publisher is, etc. is all filled out; fantastic job! Kudos for using quotes for some of the references too; I've rarely seen an editor take the time to list the exact quote in their reference even in some really high-quality articles; excellent work! My goal for this review is to be as thorough as possible, but please note it's my personal policy not to make any edits on the article I'm currently reviewing, so the list of changes is up to other editors to carry out. Here's my full review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

My requirements for GA passage:

The second sentence of the lead is a run-on; my suggestion to fix the syntax would be to have it read, "The twenty-fourth annual WrestleMania event was the first to be held in the state of Florida,[3] and only the second WrestleMania to be held entirely outdoors (the first being WrestleMania IX)."
The third sentence of the lead is also a run-on. Try changing it to something like, "The event featured ten professional wrestling matches with pre-determined outcomes between the fictional wrestling personalities participating in the event."
The first time it is mentioned, wikilink the word "ring" to the Wrestling ring Wikipedia article so as to provide more context to readers
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead doesn't flow very well. It currently reads, "The event starred wrestlers from the Raw, SmackDown and ECW brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are assigned to wrestling brands under the WWE banner." As with the last two sentences I mentioned, find a way to better integrate the explanation of the purpose that the brands serve, or maybe just re-phrase the sentence entirely. I'll leave it up to you.
The eighth and ninth sentences of the second paragraph of the lead currently read, "Another match had wrestlers from all three brands fighting in a Money in the Bank ladder match, where the objective is to climb a ladder and retrieve a briefcase. CM Punk won the match." Please combine these two sentences as you see fit.
The last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead just offer two must info; it's not concise enough. A reader looking for a quick summary of the article has to go through to much stuff to get the basic idea of these info. In this case, if readers want a more in-depth explanation of a career-threatening match, my guess is they will either read more about it in this article or go to the wiki article specifically devoted to it. My suggestion is to combine these sentences to read, "Another bout was a Career Threatening match, where Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair, forcing Flair's retirement from professional wrestling."
Definitely reorder mention of the matches in the lead so that they go chronologically, ending with the match between Edge & The Undertaker.
Actually, it's not supposed to go in order. It supposed to list matches starting with the most important match, the main event - so it has to start with the Edge/Undertaker match and then it's just at random. This is how it is in three other FA's.

Very well. I'm by no means an expert when it comes to pro wrestling, so if that's how the FAs do it, then I'll defer to that. Monowi (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC) iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's too much in-depth info in the lead. Try to combine the third and fourth sentences of the third paragraph of the lead. Not all the info currently mentioned in those two sentences can fit into a single sentence, so it's up to you to pick the most important stuff.
Honestly this was suggested by the FA reviewers. It's the only way we got three articles to Feature article status, and the in-depth info should stay. iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to nullify this requirement. With the prose all cleaned up now, the article is much easier to read, so this issue is of no great importance now. Monowi (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the lead that reads, "WWE and the city of Orlando hosted festivities..." is also a run-on that needs to be trimmed down.
The very last sentence of the lead starts with the number 1,058,000; that number needs to be written out in words if the sentence is going to read exactly the same. I would suggest starting the sentence, "More than one million people ordered...", making sure the exact number of people remains unaltered in the body of the article.
One of the most important things to mention at the start of the background section is something that was already mentioned in the lead; particularly that the wrestlers participate under fictional wrestling personalities, and that the results of the matches are pre-determined. Remember, the lead is a simple summary of what's in the body of the article.
I'm noticing a trend here; the run-on sentences are mostly a result of adding in an explanation of some aspect of pro wrestling into the middle of the sentence, such as the second sentence in the first paragraph of the background section. My suggestion is to immediately take a look at the Featured Article No Way Out (2004). Instead of me pouring over every single run on sentence, you can get an idea of exact how much explanation is needed by reading that article. For the rest of this review, I'll simply list a run-on sentence, then you'll know to go in and change it.
Ok, sure - I've been working off of the Featured article The Great American Bash (2005) as I had it featured. iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Run-on sentences; the fifth and sixth sentences in the first paragraph of the "Background" section
See above, the run-on is required for featured articles. iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may prove to be a mute point depending on how you fix those sentences, but there's a typo in one that reads, "...making it a Triple Threat match, or a standard match that involves a three wrestlers."
Run-on sentence: the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Background" section
Again - see above. iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the "Production" section is poorly worded. I'd be happy with anything that sounds better, whatever you determine that to be.
In the third sentence of the "Production" section, re-phrase the part that says, "...design of the ring setup was revealed showing a larger rig..." to something more concise, like, "...design of the ring showed a larger rig...."
In the fourth sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the Production section, put parenthesis around the phrase, "as compared to WrestleMania 23's height of 150 ft"
In the production section, it mentions that WWE was planning to investigate the pyrotechnics accident that occurred. What was the result of that; did they indeed investigate it, and if so, what was the result of that investigation?
The last three sentences under the "Production" section are formatted as two paragraphs. A paragraph typically consists of three or more sentences, so definitely combine the sentences to make sure the paragraphs are at least three sentences each.
Fix the last sentence of the "Pre-Show" section. I'm not sure what the phrase "In this match" has to do with the rest of the sentence, but definitely fix the punctuation and make sure the references for that sentence are all displayed after the period.
In the second paragraph of the "Preliminary matches" section, an explanation for the "money in the bank" match is once again offered. Considering it was already explained in the "Background" section, it would be best to remove the explanation from here.
The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "prelim matches" section needs to be re-worded. I think the intention was to have it read, "...but Punk trapped Jericho's one leg in the ladder's steps and retrieved the contract himself briefcase to win the match."
Insert a comma into the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the "prelim matches" section, so that it reads, "The next match, which was billed as a "Battle for Brand Supremacy", was between SmackDown's Batista...."
At the start of the 9th sentence of the 1st paragraph of the "main event" section, remove the comma where it says, "Michaels then, trapped Flair...."
The first two sentences of the "Aftermath" section can't stand on their own as a paragraph. They either need an additional sentence, or to be incorporate into the other paragraphs somehow.
The 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Aftermath" section seems to be missing a word, because part of it reads, "...Jericho was later into the match...."
Run on sentence: the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the "Aftermath" section
In the 2nd sentence of the "Reception" section, make it so it reads, "...was rated an 8 out of 10..." instead of "...was rated a 8 out...."

Suggestions for future improvement:

Continue to use the Featured Article No Way Out (2004) as the model for what this article should be like. It is the definitive example of what a Wikipedia article about a pro wrestling event should be, from its excellent lead paragraphs, to its great background section, to the way the sentences are written and structured.

I've been using The Great American Bash (2005) as I said above. iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool; they're both great articles to model this one after. Monowi (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the reception section, it might be cool to have quotes from fans who attended the event, if in fact that's even possible. Ideally, you could a quote both from a person who enjoyed the event and a quote from somebody who found fault with it.

Unfortunately, there are no sources for it. iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was such a big event, my guess is that a local newspaper in Orlando might have written a story about it. Since the WWE itself is such a frequently cited publisher, adding an outside publishing source in mainstream media would be a nice addition to the article.

Is this absolutely necessary? iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not, which is why I have put it under my "suggestions" portion. I'm simply suggesting it would be cool to use an additional publisher outside the WWE. In my experience, I've found using a wide variety of reference sources makes the article stronger, but the WWE articles are more than adequate for GA status. Monowi (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review Result:

GAN review ON HOLD

In short, this article is great overall, but does need work on the prose to meet GA status.

I will place the article on hold for seven days, during which time all requirements need to be met in order for me to consider passing it. When/if all the requirements are met, please notify me on my talk page, & I will review the changes. For anyone else reading this review, please consider reviewing an article yourself at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to read would have placed in so far for the review and thought to add a comment for the reception section to see what you, the reviewer, thought. How about iMatthew adds a little bit of what The Sun thought. They have multiple reviews for professional wrestling events. If you would like to see what it brings to the table, take a look at Sacrifice (2008)#Reception and Lockdown (2008)#Reception. A reviewer thought it was a good idea in Sacrifice 2008's review.--WillC 07:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you or another editor wish to put this material in the article, go for it. Monowi (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this review. I'm leaving in ten minutes, and will be gone about about eight hours, so sometime tonight, I'll start working on this. Thanks again, iMatthew 11:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed everything with some comments. iMatthew 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Review Passed

Congratulations; after reviewing the changes to this article, I believe it meets the Good Article requirements. The changes were fine, and I enjoyed reading the article even more than I did before. Excellent work, and good luck with the article as it works its way up to FA status. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]