Talk:SummerSlam (1994)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SummerSlam (1994) article.
Article policies
Good article SummerSlam (1994) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

[edit] GA concerns

I was conducting a review, but my review resulted in me being unsure of my thoughts on the article. The article clearly has problems with WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves and WP:Words to avoid that can be fixed without much difficulty. Also, in the background section, the repeated use of the word Angle or storyline is problematic. The section should probably be renamed Pre fight storyline or prefight angle and have some of the repeated words of angle and storyline removed. The article structure in the second section is a concern to me. It feels that the section doesn't flow very well because each paragraph of the section is about its own fight. The section might require subheadings. I'm the least sure on this observation. Also, what might be added to the article: how much money did the fight gross?User:calbear22 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is not meant to dismiss your comments in any way. I welcome any discussion of the format of professional wrestling articles. When writing this article, I tried to keep this article in line with both Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVguidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Real-world perspective. The section headers are the standards ones used in every professional wrestling pay-per-view article. The use of terms like "angle" and "storyline" is to help clarify that the events are scripted. I have tried to model it after Shelton Benjamin (a Featured Article), which experienced members of WP:PW point to as a good guideline for "out-of-universe" wrestling articles. I am open to removing some of the terms if it's already clear that the events are scripted and the extra words disrupt the flow of the article, but I would like to stay within the guidelines of WP:PW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to point out any "Words to avoid" or places in which the facts aren't speaking for themselves? I have looked over the article, but I'm new to these guidelines and I'm not sure where the problems are. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
One last thing I want to mention--I am going to be out of town without internet access as of tomorrow (Saturday, March 15) until Wednesday, March 19 with no internet access. I apologize for not being able to respond to comments, but please understand that I am not ignoring anyone. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. The words to avoid is pretty straight forward if you follow the above link. Basically, words like however, despite, although and so one are generally not allowed according to the guidelines. Facts speaking for themselves is more difficult and fortunately, doesn't occur as frequently in this article and occurs primarily in the aftermath section. From looking over the section again, two instances stick out. "quietly disappeared" and "successfully defended." The last one is easy to fix, just remove the word successful. The first one can be fixed probably by explaining quietly. The link above for Facts speaking for themselves provides a short section that will tell you what you need to know. Y Done Thanks for the explanation. That definitely helps tighten up the prose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of my lack of familiarity with wrestling articles is one of the reasons I didn't commit a formal review. I'll take a look at that article to see how it looks.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is article is going to be a little different from Benjamin because this article is an event, not a person. You don't have to remove all of angle or storyline, just some of them. I don't really agree with calling a section a "background" section because it isn't very descriptive. I guess I might be by myself on that one. I've never confronted a conflict with project guidelines. There is nothing in the good article criteria that I've seen that discusses them.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed a few of these words. Do more still need to come out? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for writing in a kind manner. I've had a few of my comments on articles (which were later upheld in review) dismissed so angrily by editors.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

calbear22, if you don't mind me adding my opinion on this, I will note these points:

1. I noticed you used jargon in your article. For the most part, you linked to an article that would explain the slang. However, for the terms, "dark match" and "house show" you did not do that, at least not in the instances they first occured in the article.Y Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

2. In the Background section, you should reference the section "Kwang and Adam Bomb were both managed by Harvey Wippleman." Y Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to calbear22: You should add the notice on GAN that you are reviewing this article. I was about to do that myself until I saw that you had already done that. Noble Story (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have if I was formally reviewing the article, but because I decided I wasn't sure what to do with the article, I left it as unreviewed to seek another editors opinion. You took care of the concerns I had GaryColemanFan.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Note: I tried dividing the event into sections and the layout just didn't look very good so I take back that suggestion. I wish there was some way the text would transition more effortlessly from fight to fight but I can't think of a way to make it any better. That just must be the way it is. Good job.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background section badly written

Why is every other word "booked", "kayfabe", or "worked"? There is no need for this, and it really makes the article look bad. "Worked stoyline", as used in one line, is redundant anyway. Also, saying "he was booked to win the title..." makes it confusing as to whether it ever happened or not.

It seems like this was written by someone attempting to sound like a smart mark (no pun intended) but failing. Smart Mark Greene (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's written like that (the same as featured articles like December to Dismember (2006)) to keep it out of universe and make it clear when something is real and when something is just storyline. TJ Spyke 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't really do that. "Booked to win the title..." does not say whether they actually won the titles or not. I still say this is badly written, maybe when I have some time I will work on this article myself. Smart Mark Greene (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed both instances so that it is more clear. Thank you for your feedback. There's a fine line between making the article "out of universe" and overdoing to clarification. I agree that "booked" isn't always very clear, especially when titles are concerned.GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)