Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Way Out (2004)/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 00:05, 28 March 2008.
- previous FAC (20:17, 8 March 2008)
- Check external links
I am renominating the article for FA becauase it is a good article and meets the FA criteria, the previous nomination failed because there were few responses and of the two responses, 1) did not make sense 2)The problem in the objection was fixed, but the user never replied. --TrUCo-X 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, overlinking makes it look really busy... plus, I think linking dates is a rather uncommon practice these days. 128.175.80.58 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Says who?--TrUCo-X 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Educate me here... what makes http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/ a RS? Same for http://www.wrestling-history.de/? http://www.lordsofpain.net/index2.html? http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/index.php? http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/wiamain.htm? http://www.wrestlingattitude.com/? http://www.twnpnews.com/? http://www.completewwe.com/ (which has a disclaimer at the bottom which gives me pause "The completewwe.com website is maintained by Hoffco, Inc. This website is intended to be used as a source of reference only, not for news, rumors, etc") Specifically, I'm looking for some sort of review/statement/etc that says what sort of editorial oversight they have or what their reputation is in the wrestling world.
- Ok Pro wrestling history is reliable because it is not what the WP:PW community calls a "dirtsheet website". It gives results/title histories, and pro wrestling history. The 100 megs free website is a reliable source because it also gives a lot of info for pro wrestling history, thus titled "Wrestling Information Archive". Completewwe.com, is used in many of our PPV articles including the FA-December to Dismember (2006), and it is one of the few sites that are considered reliable. However I will admit, Lords of Pain and wrestling attitude are not reliable, and I fill fix those. I will notify when fixed.--TrUCo-X 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct that http://slam.canoe.ca/ is hosted by http://www.canoe.ca/ which looks like a national news organization in Canada?- Yes you are correct.--TrUCo-X 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.onlineonslaught.com/recaps/smackdown/20040715.shtml gives me a "onlineonslaught.com expired on 03/06/2008 and is pending renewal or deletion" notice which doesn't exactly inspirre confidence in it's reliablitly.
- I will have to find other sources to replace sources from Online onslaught.
- Educate me here... what makes http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/ a RS? Same for http://www.wrestling-history.de/? http://www.lordsofpain.net/index2.html? http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/index.php? http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/wiamain.htm? http://www.wrestlingattitude.com/? http://www.twnpnews.com/? http://www.completewwe.com/ (which has a disclaimer at the bottom which gives me pause "The completewwe.com website is maintained by Hoffco, Inc. This website is intended to be used as a source of reference only, not for news, rumors, etc") Specifically, I'm looking for some sort of review/statement/etc that says what sort of editorial oversight they have or what their reputation is in the wrestling world.
See also sections usually come before the references. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- That's Fixed.--TrUCo-X 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- At the time of this writing, reference eighteen is invalid.
- The match notes in the results section should be sourced. iMatthew 2008 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 18 fixed, I feel notes dont need to be sourced, its already sourced in the event section and the ref that sourced the match covers the notes.TrUCo-X 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out December to Dismember (2006). Our first FA. iMatthew 2008 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TrUCo-X 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see no other problems with it. The MoS is great, I haven't found any spelling or grammar errors. Everything is fully sourced and explained. I give my support. iMatthew 2008 15:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- "the fifth annual (and sixth overall)" - confusing.
- The event was first held in 1998, but not in 1999. But then it was used again in 2000 annually till present, so becuase it was not used in 1999 it was not continuosly annual. Is that better addressed?~~
- Well it needs addressing in the article, not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is redundant. Overall means how many "overall", how can I fit an entire sentence into the lead for that little phrase? For example Unforgiven (2004), that is how it is written and its a GA.--TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's as maybe, but this is FAC not GAN so standards are very much higher. All I'm saying is that I found the phrase confusing. If it stays, so be it, I won't oppose on that alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that sounds weird, as well. Plus, whenever there is a new new No Way Out (or whatever pay-per-view event), you'll just have to go back and change the overall number. I removed that, but kept "fifth annual", as most people understand what that means. Nikki311 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's as maybe, but this is FAC not GAN so standards are very much higher. All I'm saying is that I found the phrase confusing. If it stays, so be it, I won't oppose on that alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is redundant. Overall means how many "overall", how can I fit an entire sentence into the lead for that little phrase? For example Unforgiven (2004), that is how it is written and its a GA.--TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it needs addressing in the article, not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The event was first held in 1998, but not in 1999. But then it was used again in 2000 annually till present, so becuase it was not used in 1999 it was not continuosly annual. Is that better addressed?~~
- Title is "No Way Out (2004)", all other mentions are "No Way Out 2004" - which is it?
- It's both.TrUCo-X
- Well, it looks to me like it's only No Way Out (2004) in the title and nowhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well im not sure but WP:PW consensus on our articles is to write it like so...--TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I knew I'd run into Project rules at some point. It doesn't matter really what WP:PW say, it seems strange that you have one name for the title which you never use again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Truco you are wrong here. The official name is just "No Way Out". The title of the article is "No Way Out (2004)" to differentiate between the event taking place in other years (No Way Out (2003) and No Way Out (2005) for example). The title is not "No Way Out 2004", so it should not be written like that in the article. Either write just "No Way Out" or the "No Way Out" event in 2004. Nikki311 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it to read "No Way Out (2004)" in the article. Nikki311 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Truco you are wrong here. The official name is just "No Way Out". The title of the article is "No Way Out (2004)" to differentiate between the event taking place in other years (No Way Out (2003) and No Way Out (2005) for example). The title is not "No Way Out 2004", so it should not be written like that in the article. Either write just "No Way Out" or the "No Way Out" event in 2004. Nikki311 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I knew I'd run into Project rules at some point. It doesn't matter really what WP:PW say, it seems strange that you have one name for the title which you never use again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well im not sure but WP:PW consensus on our articles is to write it like so...--TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it looks to me like it's only No Way Out (2004) in the title and nowhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's both.TrUCo-X
- "Ankle Lock" does not need to be capitalised.
- I disagree with this one. It is the proper name for the move, not the move in general. Nikki311 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then the link used needs to be corrected because it refers to "Ankle lock". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind. You are right. I misread it as "Angle Lock". Ankle lock does need to be uncap. Nikki311 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it.TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind. You are right. I misread it as "Angle Lock". Ankle lock does need to be uncap. Nikki311 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then the link used needs to be corrected because it refers to "Ankle lock". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this one. It is the proper name for the move, not the move in general. Nikki311 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you end a sentence with Smackdown! you probably don't need the full stop as well.
- But that's the name of the show. (with the exclamation mark)TrUCo-X
- Not disputing that at all, but Smackdown!. looks odd since you have two "periods" in a row. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But thats how it might have to be due to it, so will it remain?TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just lose the full stop! That way it's fixed for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Full stop lost. Nikki311 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just lose the full stop! That way it's fixed for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But thats how it might have to be due to it, so will it remain?TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not disputing that at all, but Smackdown!. looks odd since you have two "periods" in a row. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the name of the show. (with the exclamation mark)TrUCo-X
- All very wrestling jargony but you've done a good job on linking out to some things. It may be a problem for the non-expert though as it's a little tiresome to only understand half the phrases.
- "Other On-Screen Talent" - "Other on-screen talent"
- "At WrestleMania XX, John Cena defeated the Big Show for the United States Championship after he delivered an FU to Show.[27][28] Goldberg and Brock Lesnar continued their feud up to a match at WrestleMania XX.[29] Goldberg went on to defeat Lesnar at WrestleMania XX.[27] After their match at WrestleMania XX, Goldberg and Lesnar were released from the company.[7][8]" - count the Wrestlemania XX's here...
- But that's the name of the event, similar to RAW and SmackDown!.
- I know, but featured articles are supposed to have good (if not brilliant) prose, and this isn't.
- Fixed. Nikki311 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but featured articles are supposed to have good (if not brilliant) prose, and this isn't.
- But that's the name of the event, similar to RAW and SmackDown!.
- Not keen on all the bold in the results. What's its purpose?
- To tell the type of match in which contestants participated in.TrUCo-X
- If I have to ask, you probably need a key. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you trying to say?TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm saying is if I don't understand why the font is bold, why should anyone else? It needs to be explained, and whether WP:PW say it's their style or not, it doesn't matter - featured articles need to be accessible to all readers, not just subject experts and fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that is the first time I encounter that problem, plus December to Dismember (2006) (FA) is like that.--TrUCo-X 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original purpose for the bolding, as I understand it, was to differentiate the results of the match (_____ defeated ______ in a ______ match) from the details of the match written below it (_______ pinned ________ after such and such move). This was in the originally form of pay-per-view results page, which were closer to just lists of results rather than articles (Ex: Halloween Havoc). When the pay-per-views began to be expanded into their own articles, the lists of quick results were listed at the bottom of the page for anyone who just wanted to see who beat who without having to read through the text. Personally, I'm not married to the bolding in any way, so if you still believe it should be unbolded....I can make that happen in two seconds. Nikki311 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really care if it was used in another FA or not, that's not relevant. All I'm saying is that the bold text should relate to something specific and in this case it really doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bolding gone. Nikki311 13:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really care if it was used in another FA or not, that's not relevant. All I'm saying is that the bold text should relate to something specific and in this case it really doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original purpose for the bolding, as I understand it, was to differentiate the results of the match (_____ defeated ______ in a ______ match) from the details of the match written below it (_______ pinned ________ after such and such move). This was in the originally form of pay-per-view results page, which were closer to just lists of results rather than articles (Ex: Halloween Havoc). When the pay-per-views began to be expanded into their own articles, the lists of quick results were listed at the bottom of the page for anyone who just wanted to see who beat who without having to read through the text. Personally, I'm not married to the bolding in any way, so if you still believe it should be unbolded....I can make that happen in two seconds. Nikki311 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that is the first time I encounter that problem, plus December to Dismember (2006) (FA) is like that.--TrUCo-X 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm saying is if I don't understand why the font is bold, why should anyone else? It needs to be explained, and whether WP:PW say it's their style or not, it doesn't matter - featured articles need to be accessible to all readers, not just subject experts and fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you trying to say?TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I have to ask, you probably need a key. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To tell the type of match in which contestants participated in.TrUCo-X
- "(5:35)" = I guess this is the time into the match this occurred but it's not clear to non-experts or those not familiar with this style of article.
That's what I have for now, witholding support pending these points being addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My responses are in-line above. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing notes; this is the second archival of a FAC for this article this month. I hope some of tips for locating peer reviewers at WP:PRV, explained at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-17/Dispatches, will be helpful with this article, and that several weeks will be taken to work through any issues before it returns to FAC. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 28 March 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.