Talk:Elimination Chamber/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * The lead really fails to summarize the article. Per WP:LEAD it certainly needs to be longer, but even with a bit of common sense, you don't get a feel for the article such is its paucity.


 * History
 * "In 2002, due to an excess of on-screen talent after buying World Championship Wrestling (WCW), WWE enforced its Brand Extension in which on-screen employees were assigned to work on one of two television programs that were promoted as "brands" (like conferences in the National Football League) of WWE, Raw and SmackDown!" Sorry but I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. I think this needs rewording. Neither does there seem to be a main sentence, other then "WWE enforced its Brand Extension". Enforced it to do what?


 * "Former WCW President and then Raw General Manager": President and general manager aren't proper nouns and shouldn't, in my opinion, be capitalised.


 * "formally announced the creation of the chamber": I presume "the chamber" refers to "Elimination Chamber"?


 * "Raw": Italicised or not?


 * "The match was exclusive to the Raw brand for the first four matches at Raw and joint-branded pay-per-view events, but upon the creation of the ECW brand in 2006, the match was promoted for the newly created brand at their December to Dismember pay-per-view event. " This sentence has the words/terms, Raw, brand and pay-per-view twice each. Needs rewording.


 * "In July 2010, WWE released Satan's Prison, an Elimination Chamber anthology featuring every Elimination Chamber match to date as of the Elimination Chamber ppv." Uses "Elimination Chamber" three times in one sentence. Also I presume ppv is pay-per-view?


 * Match
 * "2 miles (3.2 km) of chain are also used." Try not start a sentence with a numerical value.


 * "The fifth match," ? What happened to the other four? This has no frame of reference.


 * "ECW has been featured once and in one joint-branded match with SmackDown for a total of two" ECW has featured once or twice? This sentence contradicts itself.


 * "SmackDown has been featured twice and in one joint-branded match with ECW for a total of three." As above.


 * "Raw has been featured in the most matches, with seven; ... No Way Out has featured the most matches than any other pay-per-view, with four." Again, this seems contradictory. Has Raw or No Way Out featured the most?


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is badly written in places, seems contradictory and the English is very clunky. The lead is too short and two sections are little more than a sentence long.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article is about wrestling yet doesn't name a single wrestler until a section at the end.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The English needs improving, better referencing, more on the actual matches themselves, and perhaps some images. At the moment, this article feels like a skeleton without any meat on it. It's well-structured and has the basis of a good article, but I feel needs more work to get up to good status. I also notice this was a previous FA list candidate. Is this an article or a list? Brad78 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The English needs improving, better referencing, more on the actual matches themselves, and perhaps some images. At the moment, this article feels like a skeleton without any meat on it. It's well-structured and has the basis of a good article, but I feel needs more work to get up to good status. I also notice this was a previous FA list candidate. Is this an article or a list? Brad78 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The English needs improving, better referencing, more on the actual matches themselves, and perhaps some images. At the moment, this article feels like a skeleton without any meat on it. It's well-structured and has the basis of a good article, but I feel needs more work to get up to good status. I also notice this was a previous FA list candidate. Is this an article or a list? Brad78 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)