Talk:ECW One Night Stand (2005)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ECW One Night Stand (2005) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | ECW One Night Stand (2005) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
editI am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
GA review (see here for criteria)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. -- LAX 00:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Crowd Chants
editHow are they relevant to this article, especially the ones mentioned during the Benoit/Guerrero match that had nothing to do with the participants in the ring? Also, if it's OR to say they were about Lita, why is she linked when talking about them? It just seems to me that they are there so someone would have an excuse to write "fuck" a few times and they add nothing to the article.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- They were part of the whole WWE vs. ECW angle that was a major storyline. When the audience chanted them doesn't matter. Where is Lita's name linked to in the chants other than the "Lita's got herpies" one? It wouldn't upset me to remove them (nor did I put them in the first place), but they have been in for quite some time and maybe should be discussed first. TJ Spyke 22:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and Lita is linked in this statement: "During this match, several anti-Lita chants could be heard, including "Lita's Got Herpes" and "I Fucked Lita".[22] " where it says "anti-Lita." Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The crowd was a big part of this event as far as atomoshpere etc went, of which the chants were an integral part. They are highly relevant and should stay. Tory88 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Maven
editI'm pretty sure Maven was there as a part of the crusade. I'm not sure if he was not put in the description for a reason but if you individually listed everyone else I don't see why he shouldn't be listed with the RAW guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.77.26 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not notable. Save Us.Y2J 15:41, August 16 2009 (UTC)
But you listed everyone else who was individually there it's not like La Resistance did anything that notable for the buildup yet you have no problem listing they were there? Just seems like lazy journalism to include everyone minus one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.79.239 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have proof he was part of it? TJ Spyke 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)