Talk:No Mercy (2004)/GA1

GA Review

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

No Mercy (2004) Wikipedia GAN review

Initial Comments: This article passes the quick-fail criteria...the references appear to be in good shape...picture copyrights seem to check out. Good job in particular on filling out all the available info on each reference like who wrote the article, who the publisher is, etc.. My goal for this review is to be as thorough as possible with every last detail, but please note it's my personal policy not to make any (substantial) edits on the article I'm currently reviewing, so the list of changes is up to other editors to carry out. Here's my full review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My requirements for GA passage:

1. Combine the 2nd & 3rd sentence of the lead section; that 2nd sentence is too short to stand on its own.

   Done.

Great work; I slightly altered the phrasing just in case not all of the previous No Mercy events featured exactly eight events.Monowi (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Combine the 3rd & 4th sentences of the lead into a sentence that reads something like, "Starring wrestlers from the WWE's SmackDown! brand, the buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by WWE's script writers." The explanation of the SmackDown can be reserved for the body of the text, plus the wikilink is right there in case the reader needs more info about SmackDown! immediately.
2. The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead section could use better wording. My suggestion would be something like, "The main event was a Last Ride match, where the objective was to place an opponent in a hearse located on the entrance stage and drive them out of the arena." The wikilink to "container based variations article should be trimmed down, with only the phrase, "place an opponent in a hearse" wikilinked to the container article.

   Done.

3. Place a comma in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead so that it reads, "...WWE United States Championship, and The Big Show defeated...."

   Done.

4. In the 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the lead section, place a comma in the sentence so it reads, "...an attendance of 10,000, and received...."

   Done.

5. The last sentence of the lead section appears to be inaccurate. The exact quote listed is "absolutely terrible pay-per-view." However, the only similar direct quote I can find from the CANOE article is, "An absolutely terrible PPV from WWE." According to Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations, it is important to "preserve the original style, spelling, and punctuation." So, typing out the abbreviation "PPV" into "pay-per-view" is not acceptable, because it is not the author's exact words. I would suggest amending the sentence to retain part of the exact quote, something like, "The professional wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer website rated the entire event a 5 out 10 stars, describing the event as , "an absolutely terrible" pay-per-view event."

   Done.

6. I don't understand the wording of the last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the "Background" section. Part of the sentence reads, "...a storyline division in which WWE assigned its employees to a different program, the other being Raw." Please re-word this sentence into something more straightforward. My suggestion would be something like, "a storyline division in WWE that features plots different than the WWE's other wrestling brand title Raw." Please note it is simply a suggestion, and any adequate rewording of the sentence you choose to do will be perfectly acceptable.
7. In the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Background" section, there are 2 parenthesis after John "Bradshaw" Layfield. Reduce this to a single parenthesis, so it says something like, (JBL, known as John Layfield in real life).

   Has been removed.

8. In that same sentence, reduce the wikilink to the Container-based article to the words "place an opponent in a hearse."

   Done.

Let it be noted in the record that at this point in the review I made text edits to about three different sentences so I didn't have to write out those required changes here and make the review process more complicated. Any editor interested in reviewing these changes can refer to the article history on January 16, 2009.

1. The first sentence under the "Event" section currently stands alone as it's own paragraph. This sentence must be place at the start of the "Preliminary events" subsection. For the purposes of this review, a paragraph is considered to be three or more sentences.

   Actually, there supposed to be like that; if you see No Way Out (2004) and The Great American Bash '05, both FA's, both are set-up like that.

While I don't agree with the decision to have that lone sentence setup in that format style, I will defer to the Featured Article in this case. Monowi (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph under the "Preliminary Matches" section needs to be re-phrased. Try something like, "Guerrero then won the match by striking Reigns with a baton taken from a security guard."

   Done.

2. Change part of the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the "Prelim Matches" section so it reads, "...giving Spike the win and retention of his title."

   Done.

3. The 2nd sentence in the last paragraph of the "Prelim matches" section doesn't make sense to me. Please re-word it somehow, as the second use of the word "with" in that sentence is confusing.\

   I think I got it.

4. The 6th & 7th sentences of the last paragraph of the "Prelim matches" section respectively read, "Mysterio began to set up for the 619 on Kenzo but Duprée stopped Mysterio from performing the move. Mysterio, however, performed the 619 on Kenzo." I fail to see how Mysterio can both be prevented from and execute the 619 move. Re-phrasing to clarify this paradox is required.

   I think I got it.

5. There's a word or something missing from the 7th sentence in the 1st paragraph under the "Main event matches" section, as it currently reads, "Big Show managed to get a hold of the ropes to force Angle to break the hold, he was scripted to knock the referee down."

   I think I got it.

6. Please fix the 5th sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the "Main event matches" section so that it is no longer a run-on sentence.

   Done.

7. In the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the "Main event" section, the explanation of the man-woman tag-in either needs to be in parenthesis, or rephrased.

   What's the problem with it?

This sentence has a poor transition between relaying the events of that particular match, and the explanation of the man-woman tag in. Perhaps a future copyeditor will be able to suggest better wording for this sentence. As for now, considering all the other high quality changes to the article, I'm going to remove it as a required change, and suggest it as a good place to start for a peer review or other improvements to the article. Monowi (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The 6th sentence of the "Reception" section needs some work to clarify that the phrase absolutely terrible" is used in context with a direct quote from the CANOE review. Per compliance with the Wikipedia policy of Neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), For example, an sentence that would comply with NPOV would be something like, "Chris Sokol of the Canadian Online Explorer's professional wrestling section rated the event 5 out of 10, remarking that the event was, "An absolutely terrible" pay-per-view event from WWE."

   The "terrible PPV" quote is for No Mercy '05, not No Mercy '04; the only reason is mentioned is because No Mercy '04 and '05 were given the same overall rating, only that '05 was given the quote of being a "terrible PPV".

While the current revision is a step in the right direction, I still believe the "absolutely terrible" quote needs to be in quotations to ensure it is in the right context, so I went ahead & did that. I didn't realize the CANOE review was for the '05 No Mercy, and as such, anyone reviewing in future might wish to de-emphasize mention of it in the article. Monowi (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Current references #37 & #38 need to be combined, because they are the exact same source. Use the <ref name="makeupaname"/> tag as was done for reference #19. See Template:Cite web for more info.

   Um, the refs. might be from the same Publisher, but it is not the same source. See for yourself.

Very well. My mistake for not noticing the difference in the webpages. This requirement is revoked; please accept my apologies. Monowi (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for future improvement:

• If you haven't already, I'd suggest taking a look at the Featured Article SummerSlam (2003). I think it can be a great model for how this article will look if one day it was to meet the Featured Article requirements.
• It would be useful to have another critic's review of the event. Another perspective on the event would certainly go a long way to balancing out the article, and decreasing the emphasis on that single review.
• I realize this might not be possible, but in the reception section it might be cool to have quotes from fans who attended the event. Ideally, you could a quote both from a person who enjoyed the event and a quote from somebody who found fault with it.
• A peer review that included some additional copyediting would be helpful before this article is nominated as a featured article.

Review Result:

GAN review ON HOLD

In short, this article is fine overall, but does need a little work to meet GA status.

I will place the article on hold for seven days, during which time all requirements need to be met in order for me to consider passing it. When/if all the requirements are met, please notify me on my talk page, & I will review the changes. For anyone else reading this review, please consider reviewing an article yourself at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GAN review passed

Congratulations; after reviewing the changes made to this article, I believe it now meets the Good Article requirements. Please note some new comments added to some of the required changes, which in addition to suggestions for future improvement, might be able to help the article work its way towards featured article status. Best of luck to all future editors of this article. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)