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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:02, 5 September 2008 [1].

List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania[edit]

I recently created this and I feel it meets the FL criteria, has a good prose and list format, and any comments will be addressed.--S_RX 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think you might be moving a bit too fast. The article was just created, it hasn't even been peer reviewed. And about the article, it's too jammed with all of the pictures. I don't think the pictures are necessary. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel a review was necessary as the concept was discussed by multiple editors and they agreed to it, I modeled the list kind of like after the List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. lists, as they have pictures to present the matter, I feel pictures of the celebs help the matter, this is not like an ordinary pro wrestling list, which is how it should be treated. --S_RX 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe reduce the pictures, maybe rid of half of the pictures. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a couple and cut down the size of them.S_RX 00:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • The list has red links. -- K. Annoyomous24 02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don' think that should stop the article from it's FLC, red links just signify that the article hasn't been created and can be created.--S_RX 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this list should be called, List of celebrities involved in WrestleMania or something similar to that. -- K. Annoyomous24 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved it to List of celebrities involved at WrestleMania.--S_RX 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - this article would have benefited greatly from having another editor look over it before being nominated. In addition, since the nomination was made half an hour after the article was created, the stability is uncertain. I believe that it appears to be an image farm, as the right margin seems cluttered. The prose needs a copyedit, as there are some grammatical errors (sentence beginning with number, incomplete sentence, comma splice, other punctuation issues). I think the tables would be more useful if repeat appearances were given separate entries (eg. four for Pete Rose), as combining them makes it hard to sort and makes the "role" column difficult to read. Two of the redlinked names are misspelled. What makes Anderson a valet and McCarthy merely "in the corner", as they had exactly the same role? The "was" at the beginning of the Dawkins entry is inconsistent with the rest of the entries. Rose's profession is probably better described as "Player/manager for the Cincinnati Reds". Sports team names should probably be preceded by "the". Some of the entries under "Role" are sentence fragments but have periods at the end. The column names "Ref" and "Refs" should be replaced with "References". The "See also" section seems unnecessary, as the only term is already used and wikilinked in the prose. I'm still not sure if publishers need to be wikilinked every time in the References section; I personally believe that it makes it hard to read and that the repeated wikilinks don't add anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was already copyedited by User:Nikki311. I change the instance about valets, I removed the See Also section and I removed the "Was" at the beginning of the Dawkins entry. For the comment about the repeated appearances, it will look redundant to make four repeated entries right next to each other with the same occupation over and over. I tried to span the rows and split the cells, but when you sort them the table messes up, so i'm not sure what to do from now. I removed a couple of the images, I don't know if that is any better. Also I checked the spellings of the red linked article and they are correct.--S_RX 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the spellings (unfortunately, WWE.com has terrible spelling). I still think it would be better to have separate entries for each appearance, as it would enable people to sort the table to see everyone who was at a certain WrestleMania. I'm not great with sortable tables, but the "Appearance" column is having trouble with WrestleManias 22, 23, and 2000 (it puts them first, ahead of WrestleMania I). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I separated them and added sort templates to the appearances.--S_RX 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: The prose has improved, but there are a few things that I would recommend: (1) "The WrestleMania franchise debuted in 1985 with WrestleMania I,[1] and has been produced annually since then." There are a couple of problems here: has the franchise been produced annually? Perhaps "and the event has been produced annually..." This would also take care of the other problem, which is that there is currently no subject after the comma, so a comma shouldn't be used. (2) "From its debut in 1985..." The article already states when it debuted. Perhaps this phrase could be removed and the sentence could just start with "Aside from professional wrestling performances..." (3) Back to back sentences begin as follows: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania", "Celebrities involved at WrestleMania". More variety would help the prose. (4) What does "promoting a subject" mean? (5) I still really think "Ref" and "Refs" need to be changed to "References". If this doesn't leave enough room for pictures, how about "Notes"? As long as it's a full word, I'll be happy. In each of the descriptions of battles royal, "where" should be replaced with "in which". (6) They didn't appear at the event, but Bucky Goldberg and Vinny Ricciotti were mentioned in each of the WrestleMania Reports on WWF broadcasting leading up the event. During the reports, clips would be shown of Bucky and Vinny driving around in their taxis and commenting on the upcoming matches. I'm not sure that this warrants including, though (they are on SLAM! Wrestling's list of celebrities involved with WrestleMania X—although the site spells Vinny's name incorrectly: [2]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to two of your comments, if you look through some of our Featured lists, a "Ref" or "Refs" column is permitted when using "References" would produce unnecessary whitespace in the table cells and/or would possibly mess up pictures. Calling the column "notes" would mean that the "References" section would also have to be called "Notes". However, one table is "Ref", and the others "Refs". They should all be "Refs". With regards to "Celebrities involved in [or "at"] WrestleMania", with the new page name change, it should be "Celebrities involved with WrestleMania". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Personally, I'd rather have it called "Asparagus" than use a non-word. I'm willing to move on, though (but I do agree that there should be consistency). As for the second comment to which you replied, my concern isn't with the article title. My concern is that back-to-back sentences in the lead begin with almost exactly the same words: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania events have come from a range of occupations, including singing, acting, professional boxing, and modeling. Celebrities involved at WrestleMania usually appear in non-wrestling roles..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Gotcha. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1)That has been fixed, (2) That has also been fixed, (3) and this has also been fixed. (4) Means promoting a certain thing, like Raven promoted the Make a wish foundation. (5)Matthew I think responded to you on that note. (6)I'm not sure, I don't think so because there have been numerous times where people talk about upcoming matches and just appear on WWE TV (or WM TV) but it really doesn't count IMO.--S_RX 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Motörhead links in the article are currently redirects. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing major, but fixed.S_RX 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. However, I disagree that it wasn't major. Featured lists are seen to be as examples of Wikipedia's best lists, and something for others to aspire to, so having such mistakes is a big no-no. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I meant major as in contrast to fixing a table/removing images etc.S_RX 22:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the redirect was fine. Read WP:R2D... we should all try reading WP:MOS and all other guidelines before thinking of reviewing an FAC. Feedback ^☎ 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a number of factual errors in the list. I'll try to get them fixed later if I can. -- Oakster  Talk  22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it Oakster, I appreciate it.--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://prowrestling.about.com/od/wrestlemania/a/wmcelebrities.htm

Well this is a part of the About.com website which I think is reliable here on Wiki no? If not, the writer Eric Cohen is featured on the Gazette of Colorado here. If that does not cover it, the Los Angeles Times also credits Eric Cohen here. According to this, his bio page his work has also been featured on CNN. Also this is the general credit of About.com. Is that enough for it's reliability?--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Current ref 16 is lacking a publisher

Added publisher to ref 16.--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overhanging pics—On my large monitor, unless I manually widen the window size the pics down the right-hand side all cover up one or two columns. What's our policy on this? Tony (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC) PS like ... at what point do we advise the creation of a gallery instead? Tony (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It mus be your monitor because on my screen the images look okay and do not "overhang." I don't think a gallery is needed since they are images of the celebs, but its not like a gallery needed for like a building which presents the building itself. Plus if we had images of the celebs at the WM's then we could add a gallery but in this case it doesn't seem necessary as they aren't images taken at WM.--S_RX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you were right, and I fix that problem it was a problem with the table's size.--S_RX 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Mr T's caption is a full sentence so add a full stop.
  • Fixed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "the forthcoming event" - I'd timeframe it (i.e. add something like "... in April 2009...")
  • Done.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "including singer, actor, professional boxer, and model, among others." - among others is redundant.
  • Removed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• You say Wrestlemania 23 but refer to the others by Roman numerals. Good reason or just inconsistent?
  • Because that is the official way WWE spelled out that year's WrestleMania. They did Roman numerals up to WrestleMania XX, then they spelled them out from WrestleMania 21 to WrestleMania 23, then they started again with the roman numerals with WrestleMania XXIV.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, wasn't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Though there have been exceptions where celebrities have had a professional wrestling role." yuck, don't start with "Though..."
  • Reworded.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "23 years later" - sure that's not 22 years? 1985 to 2007...
  • True, fixed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "sang another rendition of "America the Beautiful."" - don't repeat the song - just say something like "another rendition of the same song."
  • Fixed.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "At times, WWE has inducted celebrities into their Hall of Fame. Chicago Bears defensive lineman William Perry, wrestled a match involving other NFL football players." - No citations here. "At times..."? Be specific please, encyclopedic article demands good, referenced examples. And finally, what links these two sentences? They read awkwardly placed together this way.
• Centrally align references in the tables.
  • Well there have been several times and it would be redundant to list them all, which is why I added "For Example" to connect the following sentence, hope that covers that. The information is also sourced in the list, so I don't think sourcing it in the lead is necessary per WP:LEDE.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay but consider merging the sentences "...involving other NFL football players. In 2004, he was inducted..." to improve the flow. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.S_RX 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove spaces between citations per WP:CITE.
  • Done.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Because the table is sortable, make sure you relink everything you've linked each time, e.g. "Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena"
  • Why though? That column isn't sortable and is not listing but is a notes section. It's more of a prose than list type thing (the notes column)--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That column itself isn't sortable but once you sort the table by another of the sortable columns there's no guarantee that the linked instance will always come first. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to do the best I could to relink those instances.S_RX 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Was involved..." - lose the "Was..."
  • Done.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure of the relevance of genre for the musicians - is it really important to this list?
  • Yeah, it's like listing what team or profession the athletes play in.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 36 & 37 are not working in the reflist.
  • I fixed that.--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--S_RX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All concerns addressed. Everything looks okay. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:56, 4 September 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.