Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armageddon (2006)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:04, 25 October 2008 [1].

Armageddon (2006)

[edit]
Nominator(s): iMatthew (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the featured article criteria. Please leave comments and list ways for improvement shall you desire, thanks! iMatthew (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images all check out (fair use image has appropriate rationale, free images have licenses and author information.) An aside, though; shouldn't the disambiguation mention something about the event, I dunno: Armageddon (WWE) or something for more context? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The recent output from the wrestling project has been more and more refined as lessons are applied from each new FAC. Does that make these pay-per-view articles flawless? Here's a hint: if they were, I wouldn't be doing this.

  • "in a match where the objective is to place an opponent in a hearse located on the entrance stafe and drive them out of the arena..." Is should be was, for tense purposes. I've noticed things like this in a couple other FACs, and can only guess that it comes from the move out-of-universe. Still, it should be tweaked.
  • The American dollar sign really doesn't require a link, as the topic is a mainly American one.
  • As I understand it, italics are given to printed publishers. Not sure that Canadian Online Explorer qualifies.
  • While I'm here, refs 1 and 32 are the same and can be combined.
  • Background: What happened to the pro wrestling See also link? I thought it was a good idea myself. Guess the project wasn't crazy about the idea
  • "in a match where neither wrestler won the match." To remove a redundancy, I suggest dropping the last two words.
  • "During the match, MVP was scripted to attempt and escape from the ring,..." Wondering if "and" should be "an". Either way, it looks funny to me.
  • Similar redundancy as above: "in a tag team match, which ended in neither wrestler winning the match." Changing one to "contest" would be an easy fix.
  • Any pre-PPV matches like in the other candidates to come here recently?

I haven't gotten to the matches themselves yet. That will have to wait until another time. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed everything above. Thanks, iMatthew (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my review of the matches.
*"This match was the first time that the Inferno match had been used in over seven years." Over→More than. More formal that way.
  • "but was unable to due to the flames surrounding the ring prevented." Major surgery required here.
  • "(William Regal, otherwise known as Darren Matthews, and Dave Taylor" Parenthesis mark missing.
  • "but Chavo managed to get his foot on top of the bottom rope" Get→place. That's really picky, but again would serve to tighten the sentence a bit.
  • "a move which sees Helms grab Yang's neck under his armpit and turns around to slam Yang's neck onto the mat." Try "a move where Helms grabbed Yang's neck under his armpit and turned around to slam him onto the mat."
  • "but Helms quickly moved back into the power position by pinning Yang to retain the championship." That's a quick transition. How about replacing "by pinning" with "and pinned"?
  • Main event matches: "and then onto the commentator's announce table." Should it be announcing table?
  • Five sentences out of six begin with The Undertaker. Can some variety be introduced?
  • "Batista pinned Booker to get the victory for his team." Get again. I recommend earn here.
Haven't gotten to Aftermath yet, but this is enough for now. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC}
Done with everything. iMatthew (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Manager Theodore Long informed the pair that they would be facing Kane and The Undertaker later that night in a match, which the Kane and The Undertaker eventually won."
  • "At the Royal Rumble, The Undertaker won the Royal Rumble match to earned a title shot at WrestleMania 23..." Try "to earn a title match" and move the match explanation to before that.
  • One thing that bugs me is the use of Amazon customer reviews for DVD reception. Did any wrestling sites that have been deemed reliable have DVD reviews for this and other events? If so, I suggest using them instead. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got to all of those. I removed the last one. iMatthew (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Keeping in mind the heavy reliance on primary and uncertain sources, which I'm paying more attention to now. It's difficult because wrestling isn't widely covered in the mainstream media. As for the name, WWE Armageddon 2006 could be an option, but that's up to the main contributors. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per 1a, 1c, 2b of FA criteria. I've gone over my issue with the title failing MoS disambig at the wikiproject page. I can go through issues with the prose as well, but I think the bigger issue is sourcing. I am unconvinced about the reliability of WrestleView.com. I went looking in WP:PW talk archives and found the RfC which apparently said it was a reliable source, and seeing as the RfC didn't have broad input I wouldn't consider that a good benchmark for anything. I was hoping the site's 'history' page would clear things up, but it seems more like a series of blog entries. As there appears to be no indication of fact-checking or the site meeting the criteria of WP:RS by itself, the only way I can see the refs still being used is if the authors are notable or meet WP:SPS to fufill WP:QS. It's possible some of the references could stay if they reference non-contentious facts, but you're going to have to defend them as common knowledge. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your main oppose rationale being against the confirmed reliable source. There are already two FA's just recently passed The Great American Bash (2005) and SummerSlam (2003) - and I find that opposing on that point is off a bit. iMatthew (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note, it was determined that WrestleView.com is reliable, per this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's *marginally* reliable. Nothing is ever cut and dried always reliable/never reliable. Even the looniest website on the face of the planet is reliable for the fact that the author of the site thinks something. It all depends on what wrestleview is being sourced for. And just because something is on my cheat sheet doesn't mean that it's automatically reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the concern that there are next to no reliable secondary sources beyond (theoretically) WrestleView. The rest of the links are just sales information and vendor listings. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Armageddon_(2006)/archive1&oldid=1088824355"