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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:05, 23 August 2008 [1].

---

SummerSlam (2003)[edit]

Nominator(s): S_RX

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel this is one professional wrestling article that meets the FA criteria and addresses many concerns brought up in previous FAC's of professional wresting articles, such as jargon and reliable sources. This article fully explains terms and avoids jargon, it also contains only reliable sources. This articles has been peer reviewed for over 2 weeks, and has been reviewed by FAC reviewers who have made suggestions and comments, which have been fixed. Any concerns raised here, however, will be addressed. --S_RX 00:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. Images and sources checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This article set out to reach a wider readership than that of previous wrestling articles, first by explaining the raison d'etre of pro wrestling in terms which the general reader could understand, secondly by describing a major wrestling event with as little jargon as possible, so that the same general reader could follow each stage of this spectacular tournament. To do this, yet still produce a credible wrestling article, requires a balancing act which I believe the editors have achieved. There may well be issues around the edges that need smoothing, if a co-operative spirit can be found, rather than attacking the article because it cannot be "all things to all men". Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check the two dead links returned by the External link checker? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a problem with WWE.com, they might be changing the links. If they are still like that tomorrow morning, they may have to get changed. D.M.N. (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like DMN said, Unforgiven is the next PPV (in 2008) and they could be updating links. I expect them to be back tomorrow, if not I will replace them with a link from the archive.--S_RX 21:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links appears to be working again now. D.M.N. (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as before. I still think this meets the criteria, but never like to do reviews without some suggestions, meaning I'll leave several random notes. Looks good overall, though. —This is part of a comment by Giants2008 (of 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

• In the lead, $6.2 million needs a non-breaking space.
  • Added NBSP.--S_RX 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This was changed from before after FAC comments: "and performed a dove with his elbow cocked onto Bischoff's chest." Ahem.
  • After so many changes, I knew I would have left something like this: fixed.--S_RX 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wasn't Vince known as Mr. McMahon at some point? Not sure if he was at the time, but if so perhaps it's worth noting as his stage name.
  • True, I fixed that.--S_RX 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not in love with this sentence: "who executed a Stone Cold stunner on Coachman and Bischoff, executed by..." Changing one of the executeds would fix this.
  • Fixed.--S_RX 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (17-14) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as with the previous nomination. Only one sentence stands out "Including its scripted buildup, SummerSlam (2003) grossed over" in the lead, I don't know why the phrase "Including its scripted buildup" is there, maybe a leftover from a previous amendment? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means other than the production of the event, the buildup which was scripted helped the PPV gross that much.--S_RX 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It just read as odd to me. Otherwise I can't see anything else that jumps out. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 02:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]

• This is not a good sentence: "The third match was Shane McMahon versus Eric Bischoff in a standard wrestling match."
  • How is it not? Literally, the third match was McMahon versus Bischoff in a standard match.--S_RX 03:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The repetition of "match" in the sentence is a bit awkward. You could say: "The third contest had Shane McMahon against Eric Bischoff in a standard wrestling match" - which might be a bit prettier. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.--S_RX 03:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "This began with McMahon and Bischoff brawling on the arena ramp"—the noun plus -ing urchin. More elegant would be "McMahon and Bischoff began by brawling on the arena ramp". See: easy-peasy; the hard thing is to recognise this ungainly construction. Can you audit throughout for it?
  • Fixed.S_RX 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "would be contested under No Disqualification regulations"—add "the"?
  • Why? I'm just explaining the rules not the match.--S_RX 03:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Coachman and Bischoff then followed up on the announcement by performing"—spot the redundant word. In a narrative register, such as is necessary in many parts of this article, avoid "then" where the flow of events is obviously sequential. Weed out, please.
  • Fixed.--S_RX 03:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for a once-over by a copy-editor: 45 mins should do it; it's not in bad shape. A few of the paras are big, grey and daunting. In summary, do be aware that some readers might accuse the article of being a little ... boring. I'm unsure how to counter this. Is it all in what WP calls "summary style"? And at the top, you do sort of apprise us of the fact that this "sport" is a largely ?scripted, pre-arranged entertainment, rather than a standard contest, but some readers might be confused by the reference to "fictional personalities". What might help is to position this as explicitly a branch of professional wrestling that is designed as pure entertainment. It would be interesting to know how and when it evolved (is that at one of the linked articles?). Tony (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the fictional personalities make it confusing? Also, who should I go for a copyedit? Well with the explanation in the lead, it basically is saying that it is for the entertainment. In response to you last comment, yes the evol. of pro wrestling is linked in professional wrestling.S_RX 03:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A branch of professional wrestling that is designed as pure entertainment." All professional wrestling is, period. There's no branch. It's all scripted. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to put in how and when professional wrestling evolved, we'd be going sharply off topic IMO as that has nothing to do with the pay-per-view. D.M.N. (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DMN, but that information is already linked in the pro wrestling article, so need for it in this article.--S_RX 03:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recently posted my thoughts on the professional wrestling WikiProject talk page about the "disclaimer" text that seems to pervade these professional wrestling articles and this article has one such passage:

Nine professional wrestling matches, performances with predetermined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, were featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by WWE's script writers. The event starred wrestlers from the Raw and SmackDown! brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are assigned to wrestling brands under the WWE banner.

I understand that these blurbs were added in response to peer reviewers who found professional wrestling articles inaccessible to those who don't know about the nature professional wrestling. However, a canned passage like this in the lead is an utter waste of space. It's bloated, poorly worded and sounds like a disclaimer. The passage is more of a statement of professional wrestling in general and certainly does not advance the reader's at-a-glance knowledge of the event itself. In many ways, these sentences are akin to the spoiler warnings that were once posted to almost every single article about a work of fiction. They detract from the rest of the article and are essentially there to placate the naivete of readers. I think that passage should be deleted outright, or at least re-worded and trimmed to sound less like a disclaimer from an informercial. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I find this as a need in the article, but I agree that It should be elsewhere. The sentence about the script writers should be their because it should denote that these feuds didn't just come out of nowhere. I also think the explanation about brands is necessary because a non wrestling reader wouldn't know what in the hell a brand is. I do agree that maybe the sentence about the explanation of pro wrestling should be altered. How about, "Nine professional wrestling matches involving wrestlers playing characters for the entertainment of the audience."?--S_RX 00:20, 22 August 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.