Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As usual, this will be less of a badge pinning process and more of a in-depth review of the article. I'll be using The Great American Bash (2005) (an FA) and my last PW review as a reference point. So, away we go...

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Couple of minor typo/expression issues but generally good.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Reception information largely missing (see below for details)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Poster used with relevant description

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Helpful wrestler images used throughout

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm tempted to just pass this but if you follow the improvements below it'll be a solid GA and possibly be near FA standard.

• Lead
  • typo: "an championship"
  • Actually, after reading the whole article, in the plot part of the lead you should state that there were three Championship Scramble matches for the WWE/Heavyweight/ECW belts, listing perhaps only the previous title holder and the victor for conciseness.
  • Reception details are limited in third paragraph (see below for suggestions)

• Background
  • Probably best to state that the event had three Championship scrambles in the first paragraph, and that this was the first time the event style had been used by WWE
  • Don't link "Raw" or "brand" for a second time.
  • Link "Randy Orton" on first occurrence
  • "as well as that its participants would be World Heavyweight Champion CM Punk, JBL, Batista, John Cena, and Kane"

I would rephrase this to "stating that JBL, Batista, John Cena, Kane, and World Heavyweight Champion CM Punk would participate"

• • Indicate that "JBL" is John Bradshaw Layfield's abbreviated name somehow.
  • Rephrase "injured after his and Batista's match at" to "injured after his match against Batista at"
  • I find the phrase "unsanctioned match" a little confusing as to me it suggests that WWE was not condoning the match which I'm pretty sure is not the intended meaning. Maybe just stating it was a "hardcore" or "no-holds-barred" match might be better.
  • Try and move the CM Punk image a little lower; it squashes text between the infobox and image on my browser
  • Rephrase "in which Triple H (Paul Levesque), defended against" to "in which title holder Triple H (Paul Levesque) faced..."
  • "the Brian Kendrick" ? I think this should be either "The Brian Kendrick" or just "Brian Kendrick" throughout.
  • "night, through a series" no comma needed
  • No need to link "battle royal" a second time
  • Typo: "over the top roe"
  • Indicate that MVP is Montel Vontavious Porter somehow
  • "won to qualify" I think just saying that the wrestler "won" implies that they qualified.
  • Same as Kendrick — use "The Miz" in caps.
  • Salvador Guerrero III? His article says he's Salvador IV but I thought he went by "Chavo" in real life anyway?
  • No need to state and link Finlay's name a second time
  • Italicise all instances of Raw when it refers to an episode and not to the brand.

• Event
  • No need to restate Hennigan's name
  • Where are you getting the information for "Other on-screen talent"? Place the ref next to the table's title if you can.
  • No need to relink and name from Mark Henry to Finlay.
  • Use   between 20 and minute (not 20-minute)
  • Make the relationship between Finlay and Hornswoggle clear (if there is one, I assume there is no?)
  • Make it clear in the match description that participants can become interim champion by pinning any of the wrestlers involved in the match (i.e. not just the "interim champ")
  • It would be easier to state this: "against Cryme Tyme (Shad Gaspard and JTG [Jayson Paul])." as this: "against Cryme Tyme, a team comprising Shad Gaspard and JTG (Jayson Paul)."
  • Typo: "over the top ropes" Surely it should be just "top rope"?
  • Typo: "put Shad accidentally" (but)
  • Close wikilink at "Professional wrestling aerial..."
  • Move refs [16][18] to the punctuation.
  • It's unclear to me how or why Michaels won, is there a better way to explain this?
• Main event matches
  • Any link for "reverse powerbomb"?
  • Any more concise way of saying "springboard backflip three-quarter facelock falling reverse DDT,"?
  • It should have been made clear in the "Background" section that wrestlers enter in five minute intervals in these Championship Scrambles.
  • Regarding "grabbed Kendrick around the waist, lifted him up, turned 180°, and tossed him forward onto his back": I think just saying and linking that "he performed a spinebuster" would suffice.
  • Capitalise "The Undertaker"
  • I'd reduce the Jericho caption to "Chris Jericho replaced CM Punk in the Championship Scramble".

• Reception
  • Place the final 9'500 attendance in the reception as well as the lead.
  • Remove? "a better reception than the Raw brand's main event". This is a little redundant given the way the sentence is written.
  • "DVD Sales Chart for recreational sports". Is that really what they call the chart? I thought all sport was recreational in some way?
  • Additionally: is it right that "Sales Chart" is capitalised?
  • No information on ticket revenue or pay-per-view revenue? Take whatever relevant information you can from the WWE quarterly accounts. The most important info should then be placed in the lead. (e.g. buys/attendance/revenue)

• Results
  • I would say "unknown" rather than "TBD" as the acronym has connotations of a future event rather than an unconfirmed past fact. (e.g. Man behind the grassy knoll: TBD vs Man behind the grassy knoll: unknown)

• References
  • First off: here is a permanent link so you known which references I'm referring to
  • Refs #1, #3, are missing an access date.
  • For ref #34: Is there not a better source than "For Your Entertainment"? Do the WWE not have the information on their site? I would prefer even an Amazon link to this one.
  • Otherwise, I'm satisfied that the other sources are reliable.

• Images
  • All images check out fine. Using copyrighted poster as standard in infobox with applicable non-free description.

• Extra points
  • Be sure to update the WWE external link when this PPV is archived to the history section
  • Include a portal link in the external links using: ((Portal|Professional wrestling|break=yes))
  • I took note that the background section doesn't mention the tag match or women's match. However, for reasons of brevity I think that just telling the background of the most important matches maybe the best way of doing things.
  • Be careful of overlink. Once you've already linked a person/topic/etc then only link it again if the second instance is very distant from the first linking. Also, once a wrestler has been named and linked then it's best just to mention their professional name.
  • Perhaps a little expansion/improvement of Card (sports)/Supercard would help
  • Try and put in a link to signature move at some point when describing a wrestlers move. I'm going to rewrite the current article as it seems to have been written by someone living in a "video-game world", completely ignoring the fact that signature moves existed in dancing, gymnastics and various types of fighting long before Pong was a twinkle in Atari's eye. The line in the article "The term "signature move" is typically used in reference to fighting games" is hilariously un-perceptive.

Feel free to disagree with me on any of the points above, especially in issues of expression etc. Some points are more important than others — the missing reception info is largely the reason this isn't GA yet but the facts are ready and waiting in the link. Excellent work overall: this should be close to FA standard when finished. Contact me here or on my talkpage any time you wish — let the improvement begin! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. I've gotten everything but a few I want to make note of. For the Billboard DVD Recreational Sports Chart, that is indeed how they refer to it, as opposed to simply sports. Also, for the FYE link, I figured it would be an acceptable reference as it is used for the same purpose in the FA SummerSlam (2003), so check that out and let me know what you think. The unsanctioned match notes, it was consistently referred to as unsanctioned, but I will describe what that means exactly in the first instance of its usage to clarify. I can't find a way to shorten the name of Kendrick's finisher - that's just the technical name. Wordy, but it's a complex move. Aside from that, I've hit everything else. Let me know about any more issues, and also, I'm planning to expand the card and supercard links a bit. Cheers, DoomsDay 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look at WWEShop and seeing as they don't put the release date of the DVD I'll let the FYE ref slide. I'll leave the lengthy Kendrick finisher too as maybe someone will give it a more succinct name in the future. As far as I can see all suggestions have been followed. The only other minor concern is that the way moves are named can sometimes be a little clunky in the prose (e.g. a front facelock dropped into a cutter, which he calls a Twist of Fate). Perhaps you could explore other ways of expressing this to give more variation, rather than just using that style: ("an X, which he calls a Y"). Also, a couple of sentences are very short which can make for choppy reading. Regardless, there's nothing of too much concern and this is a fine GA now and pretty much ready for FAC if you so wish to bother the folks other there. However, I would wait until dollar revenue information is available (see third lead paragraph of SummerSlam linked above). I have to say this has been a quick review but when you've been waiting since November 2 I can understand if you guys are keen to work! Anything else to add/modify before I pass this for GA? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with it as a GA if you are. I can take a look at cleaning up some prose for a potential FA in the future. Thanks for the great review. Cheers, DoomsDay 03:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just done a little rephrase in the lead to avoid overuse of "feature". You may also wish to wikilink undercard but I'm unsure if this is a necessary or even helpful link as I think previous links to supercard/card etc cover the problem of comprehension. One final point before I pass this: is it "SmackDown brand" or "SmackDown! brand"? Or do the episodes carry the exclamation mark? This isn't clarified at all in WWE Friday Night SmackDown, World Wrestling Entertainment or WWE Brand Extension so I think the term should be nailed down. I fixed this article to use "SmackDown" as that was the most prominent usage but you should review whether this is the correct usage.

Oh, and don't worry, this is my final tinkering on the edges before I pass the article! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for the brand, it's SmackDown, and for the TV show, it's SmackDown!. I'll fix the instances on it. Cheers, DoomsDay 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]