I will pick up this review starting today, it's sat for entirely too long and suffered from an unfortunate "false start" at GA2. Note: Others are invited to provide opinions and input on the review, but I will not let it derail the process like it already has twice. Disruptive, pointy behavior won't be tolerated. Note: While I work almost exclusively on Pro wrestling articles I think I have a pretty good record of quality work and believe I an unbiased and impartial, I see plenty of project music or project Military History reviewing within their own scope without any problems, I do not generally work on WWE articles so there should be no conflict of interest.
When I do GA reviews I usually take a couple of days to provide comments and feedback as I work through each GA Criteria, anyone is welcome to jump in and fix anything I call out while I do my review, you do not have to wait until the end. I may fix minor issues myself while I am doing the review if they are trivial (take more time to type it out than to fix it). The nominator is allowed to disagree with my comments or suggestions, that is all part of the process. if I feel like an issue raised is a blocker for reaching GA I'll be more than happy to work with you to find a solution that you are happy with and still hits GA quality. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy Violation tool has 10 hits with more than 5% match
94.7% prowrestling wikia - Wiki mirror, copied FROM Wikipedia, not TO it
42.5% Wrestling DVD Network - One entry seems to be potentially iffy, but looks to have been rewritten enough from the original to not be an issue
41.9% 411 Mania - Hits on 4 word phrases such as "“Million Dollar Man” Ted Dibiase" etc. which is not a copyvio
39.8% Retro Pro Wrestling - As above, indicates on phrases such as "The Honky Tonk Man, and", not a violation. Also a limited quote which again is within guidelines
27.0% ProWrestling.net - "Randy Savage defeated Ted DiBiase to win" like snippets
21.0% TJR Wrestling - Phrases like "Tito Santana and Rick Martel" and battle royal participants
13.0% WWE - snippets like "a large sum of money"
8.3% Canoe - A quote
7.4% WCW Rules 4 Lyfe - snippets like “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”
6.5% WCW Rules 4 Lyfe - snippets like "with an inverted atomic drop."
Conclusion - No issues detected
Running notes
Venue - It was never promoted as the "Historic Atlantic City Convention Hall",but the "Trump Plaza" which is how it was presented. The article needs to balance FACT and Kayfabe. The "Fact" is that it was the "Historic Atlantic City Convention Hall", the Kayfabe is that they called it "Trump Plaza". I think the info box use of a note is an appropriate balance for that entry. I do feel like the article is missing a "Background" section, which would be a great place to explain the location discrepancy in prose.
Alright let's address the biggest underlying problem I am seeing in the article, something that most professional wrestling articles struggle with and many get wrong: Kayfabe. The "Storyline", "Event" and "Aftermath" is written almost 100% "in universe", keeping Kayfabe and making it look like it's all a competitive sport and not a form of scripted entertainment. Looking at the article the small background section (recently added) and the reception is the only thing that's not in Kayfabe. To compare it to other entertainment media it would be like a movie article being 85% plot summary, and no true Good Article for a movie is 85% plot. This is a fundamental flaw in the article. I am not going to quick fail it for this, because then nothing gets improved, but there will need to be some rewriting done to address this.
I am not going to do a lot of prose review of those three sections right now, they need work and I’d rather review the rewritten sections.
Yeah but quick fail doesn't lead to article improvements, so I'd only ever quick fail something beyond hope. So a couple of options - I can put the review on hold if you think the rewrite can happen in the next week or two, or if you need longer I can fail it, let you work on it and provide feedback when you want so that you are not under any time pressure, the choice is yours Lee VilenskiMPJ-DK (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will review the other aspects (images, stability etc.) and hold off on prose/MOS review until you're done with the rewrite. And you are welcome, the GA process works best when it's a collaboration. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I feel pretty bad about it. I think I nominated this when I was much less familiar with the GA process (although most of my work is on Snooker/cue sport articles), so looking at it now, it's pretty horrendous. I'll get something worth reviewing to you as soon as I can. Thanks for your time again. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on the article (not the aftermath section yet, sorry). Specifically, I've tried to limit a lot of the wordage and over explination of matches. I've also attempted to write "on-screen", or similar when referring to wrestler's relationships. Hopefully this is better (it was a mess, you are right). I'll next attempt to shorten the reception section (I think I tried to write this similar to a reception section for a video game, however it looks like this was completely the wrong way to go), and copyedit the aftermath section in its entirety. Thanks for being patient. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)16:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've done a full re-write. I still need to do a copyedit, but I think I've removed most of the kayfabe (or at least clarified it). This is hopefully a lot better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Opinion sources
Item 2 - Sources (outside of the reception section, citation 1-21 and 31-39) - The standard for these sources are higher than the “opinion” sources used in the "reception" section so I will deal with them differently. I will be looking at both the project RS list as well as the definitions under WP:RS to make sure it’s all at GA quality. Right off the bat I see quite a few primary (WWE) sources, 13 out of 39 – ‘’’one-third of all sources’’’ – Personally that’s too high a percentage to rely on a primary source for a Good Article, my personal aim is to only use primary sources when no other sources are available. This information should be out there if you just look for it.
Please elaborate on why it is thought that the following are reliable sources and thus okay for use in a Good Article. Since these are not used to support opinions there is a higher demand on source quality.
ThoughtCo
So, this was the best source of information I could find that specifically mentioned a list of attendance in one reference (I suppose I could simply link to WWE's profile on the event, but that's a primary source. The source has editorial roll, so I was pretty confident about it's reliability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I've changed this to the WWE's own information [1], although it could also be sourced to cagematch for results (I tend to try and stay away from cagematch for this, to avoid repetition.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really does look like I didn't do a source review at all for this when I nominated. I apologise, I'd normally be more pro-active. Bare with me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Bret Hart book source citation is not complete, that’s only half of how the Harvard style is supposed to work. I can help you fix this if you are unsure of how and also transform the Ted Dbiase book citations to be consistent if you would like?
One source lists “World Wrestling Entertainment” and others “WWE” as the publisher, please be consistent.
The prowrestlinghistory source in the table is at the wrong level. it does not source all results in the table, just the tournament, so i should only be applied to those matches, no in general.
Item 3 - Reception section & sources – citations currently numbered 22 through 30
The concern raised by someone is that some of these may not be suitable for a GA, I’ll try and get a feel for each “Opinion source” and the sites that publish them. For GA we don’t want every Tom, Dick and Mark who commented on this to be in the article.
Broad in coverage
Nothing in PPV rates? Commercial tape releases, DVDs, WWE network availability etc.? I think it'd help give full picture of these facts are included in the article.
As for the lack of a background section, I was following the same lines as that of my only other GA from PW, WrestleMania II. This didn't have a background section. However, I'm sure I can easily write one up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)07:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrClog I hate to do this, but I have found myself less and less able to focus on detailed Wikipedia work and only really read or do minor gnoming tasks. There is no way I can do the review justice and will unfortunately have to withdraw from this. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
