Talk:Survivor Series (2007)/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It appears well written, comprehensive and well referenced. I have only a few comments which are listed below. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I dabbed two wikilinks (correctly, I believe)
 * Charles Robinson
 * Scott Armstrong > Joseph James, Jr.

The following reference links appear to be dead: Otherwise, the article is in good shape. I will place it on hold to allow you to address these issues. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/matches/3916184/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/thegreatamericanbash/matches/42789821/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/52676102/results
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/5267610/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/43349641/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/52676101/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/unforgiven/matches/48366501/results1/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4335284/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/summerslam07/matches/3900088311/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964113/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/43349641/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/433496412/results/
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/exclusives/hbkortonstipulations
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4335284/results/
 * Also, some of the references have titles that are in all caps. These need to be reduced to sentence capitalization style.
 * I replaced all the dead links, yes you dabbed those correctly :), and none of the refs are in all caps, though, their official title involves some words to be in caps, which is how the publisher wrote them.-- TRU    CO   21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the publisher has it in all caps, I believe you should reduce the caps in the references. (Like FAC would make you do it.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: