Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montreal screwjob

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Montreal screwjob edit

(Previous FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Montreal Screwjob)

Hi all - I've expanded and revised the article thoroughly. I feel the next step is the FAC, where I can obtain the main round of criticism and corrections. I request your input and support for this article to become an FA. Rama's arrow 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Not enough references, and some references are used multiple times in a single paragraph (as opposed to referencing the entire paragraph to that single reference by placing the footnote at the end of the paragraph. Helltopay27 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at this - [1]. I've added fresh citations and references to every paragraph - raising the total to more than 50 citations, plus 5 books. A single footnote style is not advisable because there is often a need for citations right after an important fact, which is considered essential as many make mistake the statement/fact as unsourced. Rama's arrow 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the images in question. Rama's arrow 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overall, I think this is a good article. Some comments...
  • Can we cite the sentence where Shawn says "get the fuck outta my ring" to Bret? I'm sure the citation is there somewhere in the article, but can use an in-line citation for that particular sentence. While reading the article, my first reaction was to look for an appropriate citation, given that this was quite a charged statement made at the height of when the drama was unfolding.
I've removed the statement becoz I couldn't find a specific citation. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might qualify the lead paragraph..it says "McMahon called for the match bell to ring as Michaels held Hart in the latter's trademark submission hold, the sharpshooter"...I think we should add that McMahon called for the bell before Bret submitted; ultimately as I understand it, that's what made it a screwjob.
Done. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We talk in the article about irate fans after the incident occurred...we might want to add to the article that what further fuelled fans' outrage was that as a result of the screwjob, Bret's unblemished record of never having submitted in a wrestling match (at that time) had been brought to an end.
No the crowd had realized what had happened - plus, no source I've read discusses this as cause of the reaction, especially Dave Meltzer's account. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are your thoughts on including some information about the repercussions of the incident on the careers of Bret and Shawn subsequently and on WWE and pro-wrestling in general. I know that there's some information on that in the "Legacy", but perhaps a synopsis of what happened to the careers of the participants and to the direction pro-wrestling and WWE took might be pertinant.
Done. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: there don't appear to be any free/cc images of the incident itself; however, are there any free images of the participants? Can we include those in order to give the readers a visual? Just a thought.
Done. Rama's arrow 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AreJay 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! One more point — "...Triple H and Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XX that won him the WWE World Heavyweight Championship and again at Backlash 2004 in Edmonton, Canada were considered a symbolic apology to Hart and Canadian fans". Did anyone from the WWE (McMahon, Jim Ross, or any of the powers that be) make this statement? If this is an opinion of a pro-wrestling critic, can we qualify it by saying something like "In the opinion of John Doe, this was in effect, an apology on the part of the WWE to Hart and to his fans" Thanks AreJay 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellently executed ;) AreJay 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has improved quite a bit since its last nomination and it is an interesting read, but I am curious about why all the fair use images were removed. Certainly it wouldn't hurt to have one fair use screen shot from the actual event? -- Scorpion 02:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe as the pictures are of a match, and the WWE sells this match as a product, it would undermine its commercial value if we use any particular image. As far as FU rationales go, it is considered best not to include if one is unsure about the policy. Rama's arrow 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but clips of the match have also been shown on TV. -- Scorpion 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support At last! A real potential wrestling FA! к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent read, has come a long way since it's previous nom. It could use a few more sources, but all of the parts that should be sourced are sourced. -- Scorpion 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Much better than when nominated.Rlevse 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great improvement over last nomination and although I don't follow professional wrestling I found it to be an informative article. Qjuad 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As a non-wrestling fan I found the article turgid and poorly-written. The opening sentence mentions a "double-crossing", but does not explain why the incident was a double-cross. As I understand it solely from reading the article, a wrestler was ordered to throw a match by his boss, and although he ultimately decided not to, the match was rigged against him anyway - who is double-crossing who, and how is it a double-cross and not simply a cross? The second paragraph uses the word "screwjob" a hundred words before the word is explained, at which point the word "swerve" is thrown into the mix. What does "swerve" that mean in this context? What does "Hart offered to drop the WWF Championship anywhere and to anyone" mean? What does "drop" mean in this context? Abandon, throw away, donate, or something else? The introduction mentions the WWF throughout, before stating that Hart was eventually inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame; although the first paragraph explains that the WWF became the WWE, this little piece of information would be better left to the main article. Reading through the text, I have the impression that there is a lot of information that I, a non-wrestling fan, need to know before I can understand what is going on. If I had a working day and seventy-five pounds to improev this article I would slash the introduction down to a pair of short well-written paragraphs, and then I would work on the rest of the article, cutting it right down, cutting out all the diversions. Take for example the "Hart's confrontation with McMahon" section - it is far too granular and could be shortened to "As recounted in (book), X angrily confronted Y after the match". It's full of "he said and then he said and then at the urging of X he went to Y and said W although at the time Y claimed that X had said W(n) to which X replied after which X said to Y although later all was forgiven". It's not written to a professional standard. I can't see anyone wanting to read it all the way through in one go. I am not a football fan, but I enjoy reading the Observer's football coverage (e.g [2]) because it is well-written and entertaining. This article has plenty of references and facts, but that is not enough. As a potential front-page featured article it would be a poor advertisement for Wikipedia. I think that whoever wrote this, and it has the air of something written by a dedicated individual, concentrated too much on the pennies. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyediting the article to fix the problems - please have a look. Rama's arrow 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This article seems to drift in and out of the fictional wrestling universe, often mixing fiction in with real world events. It seems to overemphasize the significance of the topic (or, at least, plays more into the storylines then it does into what all of wrestling really is -- a business that is simply perpetuated with stories of neverending conflict and controversy). Past FA candidacy has no relevance in an FA discussion -- it should be judged on its merits, not how much better it is than the last time it was nominated. This surely isn't the best wikipedia can offer. /Blaxthos 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what are you objecting to? Which part of the FA criteria does the article not satisfy? The "significance of the topic" is pretty high in the wrestling world. The article is completely factual, well-sourced with over 50 citations from reliable sources. "Past FA candidacy" is only a courtesy link. Rama's arrow 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Montreal_screwjob&oldid=1145618599"