Talk:Mexican National Atómicos Championship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ooh, lucha libre - I'll review this and post comments here soon. Kingsif (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Style

 * Lead about the right length, could be longer but the tables do give the body a lot of extra length
 * Things like "National title" do not need quotation marks, nor a capital letter - it's a common noun phrase
 * 'Atómicos' should be in italics (Atómicos), not quotation marks
 * In the rules section, the short, simple sentences could be improved, possibly combined for more fluid readability.
 * no champions were substituted - how would one substitute a champion in the first place?
 * "males" should probably be 'men'
 * The phrasing also creates contradictions, even when unintended. The History section says that in 1996 the championship became inactive from that point on, which means in perpetuity, i.e. has never started again and never will. Yet, the same paragraph says another match was held In August (no year given, needs a year, though presumably the 1998 one)
 * Maybe another example - the start of History says the championship was created for the AAA, the end of the section says it's nothing to with AAA...
 * Atómico names do not need translation. This also adds to the messiness of the History section.
 * Is two teams trading wins between 1998 and 2002, when the championship is not even held annually, actually a "dominance"?
 * Awkward-to-poor phrasings are intermittent throughout; grammar is incorrect in some areas
 * only for a reorganized Black Family, now known as La Secta del Mesias ("The Sect of the Mesiah"), won the championship on May 20, 2007 - grammar example where phrasing may have been changed before/after the subordinate clause but the grammar was not corrected to match
 * The last atómicos champions, Chessman and the Psycho Circus (Killer Clown, Psycho Clown and Zombie Clown) were stripped of the titles on January 25, 2009 by AAA Commissioner Vampiro, in storyline terms because they attacked Vamprio after winning the championship - I understand what this is trying to get at with "in storyline terms", but it may be better slowing the sentence down and explaining a bit more
 * In December AAA, AAA announced - what year was meant to be there?
 * Needs work - a lot of work. Some parts are contradictory so I don't know what is actually correct, the rest has a fair number of mistakes and amount of bad phrasing for a reasonably short amount of prose.

Coverage

 * Two tournaments (the first two) are given coverage in 'Reigns', but the championship ran for another 10 years.
 * Though I'm also confused why these details are under 'Reigns' at all - and why the rest of the article isn't under 'Reigns', since they actually contain info on that topic
 * Through the History section, some things are given a fair amount of detail, whereas others are skimmed over. Later years in particular seem short on detail.
 * There's also saying The Black Family (Chessman, Cuervo, Escoria and Ozz briefly held the championship for 21 days,[u] before Sevilla and Los Barrio Boys regained the championship without any other detail - why were these held so close, etc. What happened here, because this could be one of the most interesting parts of the championship's history, but it's glossed over.
 * Fail

Illustration

 * Tables are used in sections towards the end where adding prose (as well as the tables) would be better
 * The tournament flowchart where there's several byes is perhaps confusing, since the accompanying text says there's no documentation to the structure - were they really byes or just not part of what was happening (this is a Verification issue, too)
 * Fair use of infobox image
 * I don't see why the stats are default hidden in the infobox
 * Needs work

Stability

 * History looks good
 * Pass

Neutrality

 * Seems fine
 * Pass

Verifiability

 * The reference formatting is unusual. It uses two different styles, so the footnotes and sources are untidy (as well as lack of consistency) - one style should be used.
 * Offline sources on good faith, publication details can be verified with a quick book search and seem RS
 * The cited source "Lucha 2000" doesn't appear anywhere in the refs, though? And with no links in the cites, I can't tell if it exists
 * No references for the last two sections/tables
 * Some WP:OVERCITE (in History)
 * As it was a professional wrestling championship, the Mexican National Atómicos Championship was not won not by actual competition, but by a scripted ending to a match, determined by the bookers and match makers. - awkward phrasing and cited to a generic source about professional wrestling, with no evident mention of this championship; it's also an American source, so is writing from this perspective. As true as the statement may be, it doesn't have a suitable source. The rest of the paragraph has the same issue, with worse sources.
 * Fail

Copyright

 * Check looks clean
 * Minimum and appropriate use of championship belt face image
 * Pass

Overall
A lot of work could clean it up, but I have to go with a quick fail because a lot of the article is unsourced or poorly sourced, to the point it really should have an orange tag. But it's an interesting subject, so when it's improved, I'd be happy to review again :) Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Every single statement is sourced to reliable sources. so I am confused. are you saying you need a source stating what exactly? saying th st the Aromicos championship specifically was won and lost via a script? why? It is sourced that it is a pw championship and ALL pw championships work like that. I have sources staying this as well as citing examples. fail to see what is not sourced and especially the big Orange tag at the top. please help me understand how we can be looking at the same article here. especially since you quick failed it for sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are using sources that give examples of matches being won per a planned story. Of unrelated matches in Texas. It needs a source saying that the Atómicos worked like that, see WP:RS and ask 'why?' there if you like. As noted above, there are other sourcing issues, too. We're looking at the same article, but you don't seem to think the problem is a problem. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true, I am not dismissing this. but i need to understand this objection to have a chance of addressing it, so I simply asked for clarification. professional wrestling works the same all over the world. would you need a Mexican based source for Judo basics because a tournament took place in Mexico? I can find Mexican examples, but you seem to ask for sources specifically stating all this for the Atomicos championship as well? Trying to get a read of what would pass muster.MPJ-DK (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You would need a source that explicitly says "the Atómicos championship is scripted". Perhaps also reading over WP:SYNTH and WP:OR could help you understand why. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep I thought that is where you were going with it. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh and before I forget, thank you for your time and input on this, I appreciate it I'll go over your input for for improvements. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)