Talk:Survivor Series (2007)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It appears well written, comprehensive and well referenced. I have only a few comments which are listed below. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I dabbed two wikilinks (correctly, I believe)

• Charles Robinson
• Scott Armstrong > Joseph James, Jr.

The following reference links appear to be dead:

• http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/matches/3916184/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/thegreatamericanbash/matches/42789821/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/52676102/results
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/5267610/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/43349641/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/52676101/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/unforgiven/matches/48366501/results1/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4335284/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/summerslam07/matches/3900088311/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964113/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/43349641/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/433496412/results/
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/exclusives/hbkortonstipulations
• http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4335284/results/
• Also, some of the references have titles that are in all caps. These need to be reduced to sentence capitalization style.

Otherwise, the article is in good shape. I will place it on hold to allow you to address these issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I replaced all the dead links, yes you dabbed those correctly :), and none of the refs are in all caps, though, their official title involves some words to be in caps, which is how the publisher wrote them.--TRUCO 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Even if the publisher has it in all caps, I believe you should reduce the caps in the references. (Like FAC would make you do it.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)