Talk:Elimination Chamber/GA3

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

Following a request (which should not have been removed from the talk page), I will be reassessing this article against the Good article criteria in the coming days. If the article meets all of the criteria, it will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Geometry guy 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment discussion
I'll check back in a few days to see if progress is being made. Otherwise, if GA problems remain unaddressed, I'll delist the article so that it can receive a fresh review at GAN. Geometry guy 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Question about 3a. The 2011 Event has not even occurred yet so there's really not much we can put other than what's already mentioned on the table at the bottom.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll work over the article and see what I can do, it might take a few days if you can hold off on demoting until then. Afro  ( Talk ) 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! I don't like to delist articles - especially not when improvements are being made. Geometry guy 14:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Indeed, as long as additional sources are not provided, the prose above the table should simply summarize the key information in the table. Geometry guy 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I'll handle the prose issues today at some point as soon as I find the time to do it.-- Will C  08:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I finished a copyedit of the article. It seems fine to me at this point prose-wise. It does repeat a time or two, but they are relevent to the point being made. Now I must be honest, in my opinion this article could be much better. It can be sourced better, but I've been told it will be sourced better soon, so that is not a problem. While a safty and injury section can be made. The dangerous aspect isn't entirely in-u, because some have legit been busted open, and RVD or Benoit hurt their neck in one of the first matches. I also recall someone legit had to go to the hospital afterwards. So that would be good information to add. A reception section is a must. If I find time I'll add a reception section myself. Because reviews of the idea, matches, events, etc should be easy to obtain. I'm surprised at how much information this was missing it made it to GA honestly.-- Will C  05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is still much to be done, but given the positive response by editors to this reassessment, I am extending this hold period for another week, until Sunday 13 February, when I will revisit the article's GA status again. Geometry guy 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, well good.-- Will C  05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think theres enough information to build a reception section. Afro  ( Talk ) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is plenty. Event reviews will tell what was thought of the event. Polls held on WWE.com, etc would a give idea of the fan reaction. There is a way to get a reception section in this article.-- Will C  21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hope so. I would also advise that it is important to maintain focus: don't add material just because I say so, or in a formulaic way according to some guidelines. This article is about the Elimination Chamber, and you should include material according to whether it informs readers about the subject. To meet criterion 3 (broadness/focus) you have to imagine you are uninformed about the topic: what would you like to know? Geometry guy 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of progress on "reception", I am assuming that a longer timeframe is needed to address this issue. Therefore, I will be shortly delisting the article, with thanks to all for the improvements made so far. To avert fears of a long and painful renomination, I would like to offer to editors that once they believe broadness issues have been addressed, and renominate the article at GAN, they can contact me for a review if they wish, and I will respond as swiftly as I can. (I will not be offended if they seek another reviewer instead!) Geometry guy 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and everything. Sorry I never got around to the reception part.-- Will C  05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)