Talk:Taboo Tuesday (2005)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   check that photo per wp:access otherwise it's fine.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is good and it's my pleasure to pass it. H1nkles (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Lead

• This is a runon sentence, "In respective singles matches, Ric Flair defeated Triple H in a Steel cage match, which is fought in a cage with four sheets of mesh metal around, in, or against the edges of the wrestling ring, in which Flair won by escaping the cage and having both feet touch the arena floor." Consider moving the description of the match to its own sentence.
• Otherwise the lead is fine; photo is good FU rationale is acceptable.

Regarding Background

• This sentence doesn't make sense, "After the match started, Eric Bischoff came out and announced that McMahon who had left the arena and placed himself in charge." H1nkles (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't want to mess your style up, but quickly, would this work ---> "A match was scheduled, but before it got underway, Eric Bischoff had announced that McMahon had left the arena, thus leaving himself in charge", work?

• Remove "had" and make "himself" to "him" and that would work great. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done.

Regarding Event

• "Before Taboo Tuesday aired live on pay-per-view, Kerwin White (Salvador Guerrero III) and Matt Striker (Matthew Kaye) defeated Shelton Benjamin and Val Venis (Sean Morley) in a tag team match taped for WWE Heat, one of WWE's secondary television programs.[2]" Stub paragraph, was this a Dark match? You could add something about that to expand the paragraph.
  • Yes, it was a dark match. Other articles like No Way Out (2004) and The Great American Bash (2005), both FA's, have them like that.
• "Coachman, who stood on the outside, entered the ring, in which Batista performed a clothesline on him." Prose on this sentence is a bit awkward.
  • I think I got it.
• Per WP:ACCESS your photo of Shawn Michaels should be contained w/in the section, it is too large and spills over into the next section. Consider placing the photo higher up in the section so that it is contained completely w/in the section. H1nkles (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.

Regarding Aftermath

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

These look good, links are all solid. H1nkles (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall comments

The article is fine, I'll pass it as is, if you could do a few of the fixes including moving that photo to comply with MOS then everything will be great. Well done. H1nkles (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)