Talk:King of the Ring (1993)/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Lead
 * Some lead information is not in the body which shouldn't really occur. ✅
 * I'd mix two sentences in the first paragraph a bit to prevent repetition:"King of the Ring (1993) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by the World Wrestling Federation (WWF)." and "The WWF had held several King of the Ring tournaments in previous years but this edition signified its development into an annual pay-per-view event." ✅
 * I can see the main problem is the second paragraph which makes the article seem like it's about the King of the Ring tournament. It's not. It's about the King of the Ring pay per view and the televised first round only serves as background info. First sentence is fine but mention it was the central focus "and main event". Condense the rest to the ideas of a previous televised first round and the broadcast of the second, third and final rounds. ✅
 * Merge second and third paragraph info to form a "plot" paragraph. ✅
 * "the event also featured" ✅
 * Not enough is made of the fact that this was Hulk Hogan's final WWF PPV appearance until 2002. Mention this in the lead. ✅
 * I'd like to see a new third paragraph based on information from the "Reception" section. Main points to sum up: Mainly positive reviews. 6500 fans = record low. Had 1.1 buy rate = highest till 1999. Released on VHS in N America/UK. ✅
 * Background
 * I'd be tempted to copy/expand this from the American Bash as a brief intro:
 * "The King of the Ring event featured a card, which contained matches that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines. Wrestlers portrayed either a villainous or fan favorite gimmick as they followed a series of events which generally built tension, leading to a wrestling match." ✅


 * Follow this with a brief summary of how the 1993 King of the Ring tournament was conducted, noting the televised/PPV divide. Any sources to cite this would be a bonus. ✅
 * Restructure: After the summary detail the outline of the TV qualifiers, then the Hogan backstory, then Michaels and the tag match. ✅
 * I would remove "controversial" from Hart's loss. It wasn't the first nor last time a face had been "cheated" out of victory.
 * It needs to be made clear that Jack Tunney was not the real life "WWF President". ✅
 * I'd rephrase this:"Because the match was not a standard tag team match, the championship was not on the line, however."
 * To this: "However, the match was not a standard tag team match thus the championship was not on the line".


 * Wikilink "pin" on its first occasion. ✅
 * Event
 * Is there an appropriate link for "signature move"? ✅
 * The mention of Hughes' use of a stolen urn from the Undertaker seems awkward as this event (nor the Undertaker) is mentioned elsewhere. Maybe you could say he hit him with a "foreign object" for the sake of clarity and simplicity?
 * "followed it up by pushing him from the edge of the ring" I think off the edge of the ring would more accurately explain this. ✅
 * Perhaps describe the Hart/Perfect match as a "semi-final" ✅
 * "Bigelow's on-screen girlfriend" maybe saying "valet" instead could provide an interesting link. However, if she wasn't classed as his valet just ignore me. ✅
 * Aftermath
 * Clearly state and cite that this was Hogan's last PPV for WWF, at the moment this isn't entirely obvious. I imagine sources shouldn't be too difficult to find for that piece of information.
 * I think the details of Lawler's and Hart's feud are going in to a little too much depth here. Could this be reduced.
 * It isn't clear if the charges of rape and sodomy are storyline or real events. I for one know which one it is but edgier modern day storylines sometimes cover this kind of material, creating a bit of ambiguity. ✅
 * Right-align the Hakushi picture as it shouldn't be popping out the "Reception" title. ✅
 * Results
 * I would perhaps say that the dark match length is unknown rather than n/a. ✅
 * Provide a quick key for TV, PPV, and winner in bold in the tournament brackets section.
 * Bold and link Bret Hart in the first "bye" section. ✅
 * The "1" note against bye is inactive. ✅
 * Extras
 * Sourcing is fine – though is there a better source for Hogan's decision not to lose to Bret Hart? I'll take your word on TV referencing but to be honest I can't imagine a better way to reference some of that earlier "qualifiers" material.
 * Add List of WWE pay-per-view events to a "See also" section ✅
 * Is there no official external website link for this PPV?

If you resolve all these issues then I'll promote the article to GA. It's a good solid article as it stands now but the lead and the structure of the background section especially are currently lacking in places. Excellent work in avoiding bias and events are generally clear despite Pro-Wrestling's exhaustive "insider" jargon. As a bonus, I'll give the article a quick copyedit once you're done. Article now on hold. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have started addressing these points. I am placing ✅ checks next to the the concerns that I have attempted to address, although I am not stating that they are fully resolved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the majority of your concerns. A few that I wanted to discuss:


 * 1) The sentence to include from the Great American Bash (The King of the Ring event featured a card): I tried to work this in while sounding more natural. I didn't want to say the event featured a card, because that's not how the term is generally used. The event was a card. I did include the part about feuds and storylines, but I thought saying "plots and storylines" was redundant (I also linked "storyline" to "narrative" because I don't like wikilinking to disambiguation pages). I'm not sure if what I've done works, but I think it's at least a step toward what you were looking for. I would appreciate feedback on this one.
 * 2) I moved the back about the Hogan backstory, but I'm not sure if it's a little awkward now, as I have Hart's entry in the tournament separated from the rest of the entries. I had placed the part about Hogan first because it explained why Hart was in the tournament, so I'm not sure if this still need more work.
 * 3) The reason Hart was entered in the tournament was because the nature of his loss was controversial, so I thought keeping the word "controversial" in was important.
 * 4) I took out some detail about the Hart-Lawler feud, but I'm not sure if this is enough.
 * 5) I'm not sure what you mean by a "quick key" for TV, PPV, etc. in the tournament brackets. They are all labeled in the key above the brackets, but I'm not sure if you want more.
 * 6) WWE no longer holds King of the Ring tournaments, so they don't have a section for them on their website. Unfortunately, there is no official site.
 * 7) Regarding Hogan's decision not to lose to Hart, I have added a second source for the refusal, although it does not cover Hogan's decision to not lose cleanly. Regarding the first source, User:Ealdgyth has placed WrestleView on her listed of reliable sources for wrestling FAs, but please let me know if you think it is sufficiently sourced now. Update: I also added the source from The Sun, as it also mentions Hogan not wanting to lose to Hart.
 * 8) I'm having a hard time deciding how necessary the mention of Hughes hitting Perfect with the urn is. I agree that it is a little awkward, but that is the part of the event that I always remembered most clearly.


 * It would be great if you could provide feedback on these issues. I'm not opposed to making more changes, but I would appreciate some clarification as to whether or not I'm on the right track with some of these. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I pretty much fully agree with all your approaches to these issues. I think the Bret Hart qualification information is also part of the background to the main event so I can't think of a better way of approaching it. As background info it seems absolutely fine to me. I'll agree with that use of "controversial" too. Lawler info seems extensive but not excessive; it's fine as is but be prepared to strip down further if you take it to FA. Update Thanks for adding "the Sun" source, the quality citation is much appreciated.


 * One thing I will say is you should show the abbreviation of pay-per-view (PPV) in the lead and use that throughout. Thought it might seem a little easier written that way. I think your solutions to the issues I raised have been done with very well. The placement of the Undertaker's urn is still a little odd but it's only a minor issue so I'll let it pass.


 * For further improvement of this article I would recommend finding appropriate material from issues of Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I also know that the British magazine Power Slam offers extensive back issues and various PPV review supplements which are sure to help. The latter source I must say will help you very much as it unusual in its serious, critical approach to professional wrestling. It all depends how keen you are on the Wikipedia PW project as I'm sure that just one issue or supplement will help improve various articles.
 * I'll do a quick copyedit in a moment but otherwise I'm satisfied and will pass the article for GA. Good work on the improvements and, most of all, thanks for questioning and rationalising the issues and my suggestions! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Passed GA review. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

'If you found this GA review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where I found this article, or take a look at WP:GAN.'