Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] SummerSlam (1988)

Toolbox
external links readability edit count

Self-nominator: I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. It had a successful peer review, was copy edited by several people, and had a very helpful pre-FA review. Because this is an older pay-per-view, there are books and magazines available to source the information, so it doesn't have the problem of reliable sources that a lot of wrestling articles have. All comments are welcome, and if opposing, please leave suggestions I can use to further improve the article. Many thanks! Nikki311 04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

~~Lulu.com is a self-publishing site, correct? What makes Ian Hamilton's book reliable then?~~
~~Please format the references with last name first, and in alphabetical order in the references section, makes it much easier to find the repeatedly used sources~~
~~Books and videos not used in the notes section should go into a "Further reading" section, not the references section.~~

Sources look good. Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for the feedback. I added a different print source to back up Hamilton's claim. For the "references with the last names first", are you referring just to the References section, or does this apply to the Notes section as well? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a review of Hamilton's book by SLAM! Wrestling, where they praise the "extensive" research. [1] According to its official site, it was in the top 10 (6th) of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's (WON) book awards. [2] Lastly, here are some reviews from people associated with SLAM! and WON. [3] Nikki311 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Last name first in both sections works best, honestly. It's just how these things are usually done in the humanities. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All completed. Nikki311 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - This is looking good, and I am close to supporting. This is all I could find during a read-through.

~~Comma after Madison Square Garden?~~
~~Development: At first use of World Championship Wrestling, provide an abbreviation as well. You can then use that abbreviation in the next paragraph, where a WCW mention or two would be useful.~~
~~"Those four events, along with the King of the Ring, are also known as the "Classic Five." Remove also.~~
~~Report, Background: Hyphen for most watched?~~
~~Link WWF Championship here.~~
Event: "The following contest was a rematch between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco of their WrestleMania IV match-up." Awkward wording. Try "The following contest was a re-match from WrestleMania IV between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco."
~~Link Frenchy Martin.~~
~~Slick is linked a second time here. I don't think it's needed.~~
~~The last match of the night was the main event match-up" Do we need match-up here? We already have match and main event here.~~
~~Aftermath: "in a match ~~over~~ for Savage's WWF Championship.~~
~~Hyphen for record breaking?~~ Giants2008 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed all of these except the Bravo-Muraco line. I agree that it could be improved, and your suggestion might be the best phrasing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the line. Nikki311 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Very fast response. Since I have no more objections, I declare my Support, and wish you good luck with the rest of this FAC. Giants2008 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

~~Lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article, per WP:LEAD.~~
Have you considered putting the Results into a wikitable? At the moment, they are hard to read.
Otherwise looks very good, well done.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I don't have time to address them at the moment, but I'll get to it later tonight. Nikki311 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead a bit more to cover more of the development and aftermath. What do you think? Also, I think the results don't lend themselves to being in a table. Many times, a list is best left as a list (WP:WTUT). I'm open to any other suggestion you may have on how to better format it, though! Nikki311 03:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead looks good now. A wikitable would be much easier to read, see SummerSlam (2007)#Results. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That table is for one match, an elimination match, where a table is appropriate. Nikki311 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The data you have in the Results section is perfect for a table. Names of the wrestlers, and the length of match - 3 columns (Winners, Losers, Time, as an example...) I don't see why this is such a problem. At the moment, the data is hard to read in the messy list format. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make one up in my sandbox to see what it looks like. Nikki311 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a sample, but all the people who have replied to my thread at Project Wrestling prefer the current list format. I just think there are too many variables, which makes the table large and hard to read. There are not always winners and losers, and when there is, there are sometimes confounding factors (interference, etc). The original purpose for the results section was for someone to (at a glance) see who won, how, and in what kind of match without having to read through all the text...so to reduce it to a table of just winners, losers, and match time would be a disservice IMO. I really am open to changing it, I just don't think a table is the answer. Nikki311 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the way the table looks and certainly think it should replace the current list. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the Nikki's post at WT:PW, the table is hard to follow and a bit confusing. To make the change from list to table in every pay-per-view article would take too much time, be way too messy, and way too confusing. The current list is perfectly fine, easy to read, and nothing but simple. Is there anything that you think can be fixed with the results section, without having a table there? King iMatthew 20 08 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To Nikki and Matthew: I will consider opposing as per FA criterion 1a which states: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" Is the disorganized list professional? For argument's sake, let's say you were an author writing a book about SummerSlam 1988. The author would use a table because it's the traditional way of organizing this type of data. I can confidently say they would not use a list. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE's official SummerSlam 1988 results page has the results in a list. [4]. The book I used Main Event: WWE In the Raging 80s has the results listed out with paragraphs of texts below describing what happened. Online World of Wrestling, an extremely popular wrestling site, has the results in a list. [5]. Nikki311 18:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The list you've linked to is better than the one on the Wikipedia page because it precedes each point with what seems to be the match type. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll play around with it a bit more, and hopefully I can come up with a good compromise. Nikki311 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to the new version with numbering. I think it is much easier to read and understand (especially visually). Nikki311 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - According to the Results, it says: "Brother Love Show with guest Jim Duggan", yet nothing is mentioned in the main body. Did nothing whatsoever happen worth to note? D.M.N. (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never read anything more than "it happened". It wasn't substantial or relevant to any storyline. Nikki311 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding Image:SS88poster.jpg and Image:Miss elizabeth2.JPG: neither is low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and both are missing certain necessary rationale components (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed everything. Are they alright now? Nikki311 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using both "WWF Tag Team Championship" and "World Tag Team Championship"? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both are exactly the same, but I believe "WWF Tag Team Championship" was used as the name back then. It should probably be made consistent. D.M.N. (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I can't believe I didn't notice that. Actually, the title was referred to as the WWF World Tag Team Championship from the late 1970s until the 90s, and that's when it became known as just the WWF Tag Team Championship. I've made it consistent in the article. Nikki311 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Generally looks good. Gary King (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, some basic problems:
- Criterion 1a (prose): Almost entirely written from an in-universe perspective. Unfamiliar readers will not understand that this even involves writers and entertainers and is not real.
- Criterion 1b (comprehensiveness): No information about writing, production, or critical reception.
- Criterion 3 (images): The fair use rationale for the image of Miss Elizabeth is very weak. Fair use requires critical commentary. I don't see any critical commentary about Miss Elizabeth in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

1a: There are mentions of writers and storylines in the text.
1b: Information about writing and production is rarely released because the company at the time was operating under kayfabe, or tat they wanted everything to seem real. Releasing that info would be in opposition to that, but I'll see if I can find anything more.
3: I wasn't aware of that requirement. Is there a policy page that I can look at that would explain further what exactly is meant (or what constitutes) "critical commentary"?

Nikki311 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here and there, but not sufficient. Most of the article describes was various wrestlers did, but it is not framed as a fictional event. Imagine an article about a television show episode where you only described what happened in the episode. Readers would not get that it is a show with a plot, production, etc.
Tricky indeed. Did you do a library search of prominent magazines and other books? Might have to dig in a bit to get all the information, but the article is definitely not comprehensive without it. As above, an article about a television show would never become featured without all the context, business, and production information.
Check out Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, item #8, but I'm actually striking that item because you do talk about what is depicted in the image. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't exactly like a TV show, so I think it is unfair to compare it to that, but I will do my best to find what I can. Nikki311 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support per Gary King (talk). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

This is not a vote. Have you carefully reviewed the article against the featured article criteria? What about the issues I just raised? --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - images and rationales look good. There were some revisions in their histories that were probably a little too high-res for non-free images (so I tagged with {{non-free reduced}}) but the current versions are OK. Kelly ^hi! 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I took care of it. Thanks! Nikki311 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] SummerSlam (1988)

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search