Talk:WrestleMania XXX/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I will get to this within a few days

Thanks SNUGGUMS for taking up this review! :) But honestly, you can take your time. I can afford to wait one month until December because I will be more active then. starship.paint ~ regal 23:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome, but unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this. Here is how it currently compares against the GA criteria.....

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: Almost. Here's some comments:

• "In late January 2014 after the Royal Rumble event" → "After the Royal Rumble event in late January 2014  Done
• Nicknames aren't really needed in this case, just use the respective article titles.
• "The local New Orleans newspaper" isn't really needed in "The local New Orleans newspaper, The Times-Picayune"  Done
• Nolan Howell is from Slam! Wrestling, not "Canadian Online Explorer"  Done

Manual of Style compliance: Some italics errors as indicated below.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References layout: FN16 is missing its work, publish date, and accessdate parameters.  Done [www.nola.com/festivals/index.ssf/2014/04/wrestlemania_xxx_a_roaring_suc.html FN65] is missing its work parameter. "PWTorch.com" should also read Pro Wrestling Torch.  Done Los Angeles Times, The Times-Picayune, The Independent, The Baltimore Sun, and Forbes are print sources which should be italicized.  Done "Canada Online Explorer" isn't needed for the "Slam! Wrestling" refs.  Done

Citations to reliable sources: Daily Mirror is not reliable,  Done and I'm not sure about "HowStuffWorks".

No original research: FN86 (Pro Wrestling Torch) is dead, can its info be backed by another source?  Done Also, how come some paragraphs throughout "Event" have inline citations while others don't? Seems to be scattered in terms of references.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: Meets the "PPV" guidelines listed at WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide

Focused: Looks good

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: I'm not sure if "special" is really a neutral description in "special tribute"  Done

5. Stable?

No edit wars, content disputes, etc. There has been lots of back-and-forth editing lately, and even more between now and the time this was nominated for GA.

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: All appropriately licensed

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: The image in "background" is rather wide. Try using something smaller in place.

Overall:

Pass or Fail: Even if the concerns might not look extensive upon first glance, stability is a HUGE problem, so I won't be placing this nomination on hold. Renominate once everything is addressed and the article is more settled down. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS - I'm willing to work on everything else you mentioned here, but I'm not sure what I can do about stability. If people keep adding WP:OR or unreliable sources to the article, I'd just have to revert them. How do you propose to help solve instability? This waited for a GA review for around 6 months and might do so again. starship.paint ~ regal 04:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest page protection, maybe leave hidden notes in the article. I understand your concerns, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS - I thought page protection was against vandalism or BLP violations? I think people are adding stuff in good faith but it either is WP:OR / unreliable / doesn't follow the structure of WP:PW for PPVs. I will try adding some notes here and there. Also regarding your comment about the large picture, I earlier tried to include a picture of the WrestleMania set, but it was deleted as a copyright violation. Panorama pictures are not copyvios and are thus acceptable. starship.paint ~ regal 06:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages can also be protected for excess unsourced/poorly sourced edits. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Nevertheless, I will try to address the rest of your concerns in your review. I will notify you again when all of them are done or replied to. starship.paint ~ regal 06:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the next reviewer will pass it. Best of luck! Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, I've settled most of your comments. The remaining, which might require some debate, I'm leaving for the next reviewer. starship.paint ~ regal 03:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)