Talk:Unforgiven (2004)

Good article review
I will take a couple of days to review this so please check back. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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:

This is the first GA review that I have completed so if you believe that I've misjudged something please leave a comment. I'll mark this nomination on hold at WP:GAN until these things are corrected. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 02:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Something else that I forgot to mention was that near some vote scores it states that votes were won by 'a mere xx%'. This seems to place a judgement on the percentage received. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like it removed? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that also. I think it should be removed. iMat  thew   20  08  03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Are the superstars that Benjamin beat out, notable enough to mention? iMat thew   20  08  03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its in the ref. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Second review
I have reviewed the article once again and it is definitely improved. There are a few more things that need fixing up.
 * Wikilinks - much better than the first time I read this. Link to mock seems to me unnecessary. Perhaps change to "fake" if you are concerned people won't know what mock means.
 * ✅ --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations - "On the 16 August 2004 edition of Raw, Orton successfully retained the title in a rematch with Benoit.[10] After the match, Evolution (Batista, Ric Flair, and Triple H) threw Orton a mock celebration, only to reveal that they were not pleased with his new victory. While Batista had Orton propped on his shoulders in elation, Triple H gave him a pleased thumbs up; however, Triple H abruptly changed the thumbs up to a thumbs-down and told Batista to drop Orton to the mat. Flair and Batista then began to beat Orton in the ring as Triple H claimed that Orton was nothing without Evolution.[10]" - The first citation should be removed, as a citation at the end of the section is clear enough.
 * ✅ --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "On the August 23 edition of Raw, after Orton refused to give Triple H the World title, Orton spit in Triple H's face and hit him with the title belt.[11] Raw General Manager Eric Bischoff then booked a match between the two for the World Heavyweight title at Unforgiven.[11]" Same again here.
 * ✅ --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are actually quite a few sections which have the issue. I won't list them all.


 * Unclear sentence - "Tomko continued his attack on Richards, as he hit a swinging neckbreaker and won the match via pinfall." Who won the match? It's unclear from this sentence.
 * ✅ iMat  thew   20  08  00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "On the 4 October 2004 edition of Raw, three candidates were named as potential contenders for Triple H's World Heavyweight Championship at Taboo Tuesday; Chris Benoit and Edge were revealed as two of the candidates for Taboo Tuesday ." Repeating Taboo Tuesday seems redundant, not to mention redundant.
 * ✅ iMat  thew   20  08  23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some extra commas in places that could be removed, but since this is GA class I won't mark down the article for that.

I'm impressed with all the good work that has been completed so far. If you can clear these final things up I'll be happy to give this GA status. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pass
I have now passed this as a GA class article. Good work Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And, thank YOU for reviewing Unforgiven and giving us your feedback on what needed to be done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)