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 SandyGeorgia 21:20, June 21, 2008.

SummerSlam (2007)[edit]

previous FAC (00:11, 14 April 2008)

Self-nominator – The article failed its previous nomination mainly because of the reliability of WrestleView, see here. Since then, an RFC and numerous discussions on whether or not WrestleView and CompleteWWE are reliable have taken place. During the most recent discussion, User:GaryColemanFan pointed out some interesting facts which, IMO, proves WrestleView reliable. As for CompleteWWE, there is only one source currently in the article. It is backed up with other reliable sources, however, and can be removed if not proven reliable. Thanks, –LAX 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To make things easier, I'll move my comments about WrestleView here. I have always avoided using WrestleView as a source because I didn't consider it reliable. I have recently changed my mind, however, after objectively looking at the facts. I believe that a few factors combine to make it a reliable source: (1) it is well established, as it has been around for ten years, (2) per this, they do not publish unsolicited articles, and they have an established staff that has gone through an application process, and (3) during a recent professional wrestling FAC, Sandy Georgia stated that sources may be considered reliable if well established sources claim that they are credible. I believe that the mention in the Toronto Sun and Ottawa Sun (see here) and the fact that a SLAM! Wrestling reporter is appearing on a radio show with a WrestleView reporter (see here) indicate that SLAM! Wrestling, an unquestionably reliable source, accepts WrestleView as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliability of a source isn't black and white and depends on the text being sourced: can you please give an indication of where you obtained the 3) paraphrase of my wording above for context and exact wording? I'm not the Reliable Source God :-) Also, I'm not sure how 1) is related to WP:V, your link to 2) the Toronto Sun and Ottawa Sun are dead, and I'm unclear what the final link demonstrates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that reliability is (not always) black and white. When a source like WrestleView is used to support information that is hardly controversial (eg. moves used in a wrestling match), it should obviously be given more credence than if it was to claim that Vince McMahon is smuggling drugs to Morocco. I think the text sourced with WrestleView could potentially even be given a blanket source from the original broadcast, since the facts can be verified by watching the event itself. With that said, I understand that longevity isn't necessarily a criterion for reliability, but I do note that WP:RS states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While longevity doesn't fully satisfy this, I believe that it helps demonstrate a positive reputation for the site. As for #2, the link works for me most of the time. It might help to check http://www.wrestleview.com/historyofwv.shtml and click on the link directly, which is found in the January 12, 2003 update. Again, while I understand that the final link (the radio show) certainly does not establish reliability on its own, I note that the vast majority of reliable reporters would hardly be willing to do a broadcast with a complete hack. To an extent, it puts them on the same level. I believe the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is demonstrated by the application process required of potential writers. It shows editorial oversight and a requirement for writers to live up to certain standards, which I think are key aspects of any reliable source. Finally, I am still looking for the statement I attributed to you. The discussion was taking place in at least 3 or 4 locations, so I haven't been able to find it. I apologize if I found the statement somewhere else and have mistakenly claimed that it came from you. I wouldn't have made the claim unless I was certain, but I'll admit that I'm starting to doubt myself. I know I read it around April 6, so I'll continue my search. Thanks for your reply and input, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments - This is the first wrestling article I've reviewed so far, and I must say it's looking pretty good. Still a few minor issues, though.

• "Khali got himself intentionally disqualified." Picky, but I would say, "Khali intentionally disqualified himself." --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Report, Background: "due to the high media attention of the Chris Benoit double murder and suicide." Something tells me those boys wouldn't have minded media attention, unless it was negative.
  • I believe that is beside the point. That is the reason why they dropped out, and I don't see why that should be justified. –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm assuming that the reviewer is saying that "media attention" is kind of vague. I changed it to "negative media attention", which adds some clarification (ie. they weren't afraid of publicity, but they didn't want to be associated with the company right after the murders). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we need John Cena's and Randy Orton's first names repeated here? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "as the new number one contender to the WWE Championship" Should this be "for the championship", or is this standard?
  • The thing is, there are currently eight championships in WWE; and by just saying "championship," one could say "Which championship?" –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The bolded version of Smackdown! should be in italics.
  • Bolded version? –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linked version. My bad here. "The main feud on the SmackDown! brand" is the one I meant to refer to. Giants2008 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. Only when referring to the show, and not the brand, does it get italicized. –Cheers, LAX 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• We have a bunch of World Heavyweight Championship usages here. Could a couple of these be shortened to champion?
  • But the thing is, there are currently eight championships in WWE; and by just saying "champion," one could say "He was the champion for which title?" –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Punk defeated Morrison in the 15 Minutes of Fame match he had earned the previous week." You just told us in the last sentence that he earned the match; it doesn't need to be stated again. I would stick to describing how Punk won the match here. –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like the repetition. Try "The following week, on ECW, Punk defeated Morrison in a 15 Minutes of Fame match by pinfall after executing a GTS (Go To Sleep)." Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. –Cheers, LAX 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Change "and hit Mysterio with a steel chair" to "by hitting Mysterio with a steel chair". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "off of a guard rail" Off and of back-to-back looks weird somehow. Perhaps remove of? –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Event: "pinning him after for the win." How about "afterwards"? Giants2008 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • –Cheers, LAX 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I noticed current ref 71 has a spelling error (SumerSlam 2007 DVD Review). Giants2008 (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back for more. I left you a note above, so make sure you get that. Also, I think the lead could use information from the Background section. Here are the rest of my problems with the article.

• Still in Event: Is there a a link for crossbody anywhere in the article? If not, place one in the third paragraph.

• –Cheers, LAX 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Two "then elimated"s in consecutive sentences in the next paragraph. There are only so many ways to phrase things, so I don't envy you here. Mixing up the order could be the best remedy. Now that I'm paying attention, there are a ton of eliminates in general here.

• I did as best I could. –Cheers, LAX 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Easily eliminated" sets off my POV alarm. I'd stick to describing how she was knocked out.

• –Cheers, LAX 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Steve Austin have Stone Cold before his name?

• –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "which led to Triple H pinning him for the win." Triple H is the last wrestler you mention, so I would reverse this to "which led to him pinning Booker for the win."

• –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see later that Khali hit Batista with a steel chair. Mention it in the match recap.

• –Cheers, LAX 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "After Orton controlled the match for several minutes, Cena gained control..." Two controls. How about "gained the upper hand"?

• --SRX 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Aftermath: "With 537,000 ordering the event" People or households?

• –Cheers, LAX 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "until Batista made the save". Seems a little casual for me. I'm sure this can be phrased differently.

• –Cheers, LAX 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Results: Isn't Stunner supposed to be Stone Cold Stunner?

• --SRX 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One quick note: I don't like "until Batista came out and attacked him." There is already an "attacked" earlier in the sentence. Normally I would fix one minor issue myself, but I'm having trouble coming up with a good phrase, so I'm leaving it up to you. That's all. Giants2008 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I think that whole sentence needs a rewrite. (After the match, The Great Khali attacked Mysterio until Batista came out and attacked him.). Did Batista come out and attack Khali or Mysterio? Nikki311 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. –Cheers, LAX 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have no more complaints, so it gets my support. For what it's worth, I think this is better than the 1988 SummerSlam article, which I supported recently. Giants2008 (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—It could be saved by a good copy-edit. Here are issues I noticed at random at the top, indicating that a thorough massage is required.

• On the edition? "In".

• Why "In"? Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW are TV shows; shouldn't it be "On"? –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "number one contender"—hyphen needed (more than one occurrence).

• –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "World Wrestling Entertainment had originally planned an angle between the cast of the Jackass TV series and Umaga, with the feud concluding in a match at SummerSlam." Nope, another "noun plus -ing" problem. See here for ways of fixing it. In any case, what does "planned an angle" mean?

• I've fixed it. –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The "with ... [noun plus -ing]" ugly ducking occurs in other places and needs to be fixed. Take this, in the same para: "with the two battling over", and then "which led to Orton giving Cena an RKO through a steel chair". Please audit the whole text for this. TONY (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I've fixed all mention; please correct me if I'm wrong. –Cheers, LAX 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply clicking on the "angle" wikilink provides a clear enough definition of the term's meaning in this context. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there's no rule or policy about forcing people to hit a link to find out what on earth it means, I think that common sense says it should be explained on the spot. Slow connections make this kind of process clumsy, and most readers won't bother to find out the intended meaning. I still haven't bothered.

Now, this is a very in article—clearly pitched at those who know. I find several aspects hard as a normal reader. Why, for example, does a "storyline" come into boxing at all? Why, suddenly, are we told about a TV series? Can you see what I mean? TONY (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand what you mean, but honestly I think you're reading too much into things. Like the thing on the TV series, the sentence I found mentioning it is "World Wrestling Entertainment had originally planned an angle between the cast of the Jackass TV series and Umaga, with the conclusion of the feud in a match at SummerSlam." (this is a copy and paste so wikilinks aren't here) You said "Why, suddenly, are we told about a TV series?".. well if you read the sentence it tells you that the cast from that TV series called Jackass was going to be part of SummerSlam. That is pretty self-explainatory. I can make style edits like to add the short definition of a professional wrestling angle in the article but this is an encyclopedia, not a "For Dummies" book. — Κaiba 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is well-written, and Tony striking his opposition is a testament to that. However, I have some other basic troubles with the article:
  • 1a – almost the entire article is written "in-universe" without any context of the business and entertainers involved. One could easily read through this without understanding it is all setup by writers, i.e. a fictional event.
  • 1b – no sections on critical reception, business context, etc. What writers were involved in constructing the story-line? Where is the production information?
  • 1c – heavily sourced to primary sources.
  • Random: "With 537,000 buys, the general reaction to the pay-per-view was positive." Suggests the number of buys correlates to the "general reaction" which just isn't true. The number of buys should be sourced to a secondary source. --Laser brain (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Giants2008. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  This is not a vote. Have you carefully reviewed the article against the featured article criteria? What about the issues I just raised? --Laser brain (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, so your saying that the article has too many sources? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is saying like the article has to many references from WWE, a primary source.SRX^--LatinoHeat 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment* It is generally a complete unknown which writers wrote what in wrestling. Though we know what writers as signed to WWE, they or anyone never really release info like "Michael Hayes wrote this storyline and Dave Kapoor wrote this one." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why does the reference "SummerSlam 2007 [DVD], (2007), ', WWE Home Video, Stamford, Connecticut: WWE94600', (2007)." have bold and has ", (" at the end? It looks like it has very broken formatting.

Gary King (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is something with Template:Cite DVD-notes. I looked at the template itself and tried to fix it, but I could not find anything. –LAX 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the citation to Template:Cite_video which has removed the bold, but if this isn't correct feel free to revert. --Apsouthern (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image:Kane Entrance.jpg practically burns out my monitor, but I understand there's likely no free alternative.
• The above image, and Image:SummerSlam 2007 Set.png, are free and could be hosted at Commons, and a category about this event set up there with a link from this article. That's just my opinion, though, not an FA criteria. Kelly ^hi! 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I found this article confusing and incomplete for several reasons:

• 1) If one were not already aware that this type of professional wrestling were an entertainment event, this article would not make that clear. The article needs to be written in such a way that it is absolutely clear what is real and what is not. Plain English words need to be used rather than jargon.

• 2) The article is structured like a sports article when clearly it also needs to have sections reflecting the "entertainment" nature of this events: what about the scripting/writing of these events? what about their reception?. As far as I could tell, there was only one sentence about reception.

• 3) The article is hard to follow for someone unfamiliar with wrestling like myself or for someone only passingly familiar with the language of wrestling - it needs to be rewritten to remove some of the jargon.

I have not looked into the source controversy above. Awadewit (talk) 15:58, 21 June 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.