Wikipedia:Peer review/Elimination Chamber/archive3

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has just finally passed GAN and became a Good Article, I would like to know what I can do to make it worthy of Featured Article or Featured List Status.

Thanks, Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 22:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I think a featured article about professional wrestling could be quite interesting, but it would have to include much more information from reliable sources than this one does. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

Parts of the article lack sources, for example the entire "Brand and pay-per-view designation" section and the entire "Match history" section. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim.

Would it be possible to find any critical reviews of these productions that come from outside the world of professional wrestling? The article depends almost entirely on sources with a self-interest in the productions. Why should readers necessarily believe what WWE says about itself?

More background should be provided for readers unfamiliar with professional wrestling. It should be explained that it is a form of sports theater that is scripted to some extent. It includes fancy costumes, special effects, and make-up, for example, as well as some aspects of unscripted sports like amateur wrestling.

When writing about fiction, it's important to make a distinction between the world of the fiction and the real world. I think you should always make clear in an article about professional wrestling that the matches are fictions. If you don't make this clear, then some readers might think that real people are being paid to try to maim and kill each other for the enjoyment of a live audience. It should be made clear that they are pretending. That their work is dangerous and that they often get hurt does not mean that the fictions are real.

I think the article would be much more interesting and closer to comprehensive if it included details about the lighting, sound effects, costumes, audience, and the characters in these fictions.

The audience does not know who is going to win, but do the actors know? Has anyone outside WWE written about this question and others like it?

Brand and pay-per-view designation

In the "Brand and pay-per-view designation" section, you should make clear that these matches are meant primarily for a television audience. A link to pay-per-view would also be helpful.

"Beginning in 2008, the match became an exclusive to the No Way Out pay-per-view and two were featured annually for two years among the three brands... " - It's not clear what the first "two" refers in this sentence refers to. Grammatically, it seems to refer to "the match", but that is only one thing, not two.

Rules

The first two sentences of this section essentially repeat the information contained in the first two sentences of the "Origin" section. Is the repetition necessary?

"Disqualifications do not apply in the process of elimination." - Should "disqualification" be linked or briefly explained? If a participant is disqualified, does that mean that he or she is thrown out of the match? What happens if all six are disqualified?

Tables

Is sorting on the month of the year helpful in the "Date" column? Wouldn't it be better to sort on the year?

Row XI lacks a source.

Footnotes

Citation 19 is incomplete.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]