Talk:WrestleMania 2/GA1

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

Reviewer: LM2000 (talk · contribs) 08:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Opening comments
I had intended on reviewing this earlier but I saw this disappear from the WP:PW alerts and assumed someone else had gotten to it before I had the chance. This is my first time reviewing so it should be an interesting experience.LM2000 (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I always enjoy doing reviews, and I hope you do to. I'll do my best to answer any questions.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time, I have made some changes to the article as below.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

 * WrestleMania professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by the World Wrestling Federation - Add (WWF) after World Wrestling Federation, the acronym is used repeatedly throughout article.
 * I agree. I will change  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (The first WrestleMania was available only on a pay-per-view basis in select areas) - Is there any way to take this out of parentheses? I'd recommend making a footnote.
 * I've made it a note. Makes perfect sense.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * it's in between periods like ". [a]." Should be like ".[a]".
 * ✅ - My mistake, edited it too quickly.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * At Chicago there was a 20-man battle royal - comma between "Chicago" and "there"
 * ✅  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Main body

 * The first paragraph in "Background" is exclusively about celebrities. This should be turned into a section like WrestleMania 31 with a see also link to List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania.
 * Ok, I took a look. Makes sense. I'll transfer this into two sections.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Likewise, the second paragraph is about broadcasters. There should be a section like WrestleMania 32.
 * Same as above,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98, the first sentence in the storyline section should be simplified to:"The card featured twelve matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF. Storylines were produced on primary television programs..."
 * I think I changed this correctly. I didn't realise this was part of the MOS.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Should there be a mention about Pedro Morales and Bruno Sammartino wrestling their only WrestleMania match in the battle royal?
 * Hmm, ❌ - Where would it go? I feel that this would be suitible for the aftermath section, but only really as a final sentence.
 * Yea, maybe it's not suitable. Might even be considered trivia. I personally thought this was a weird fact considering their importance to the history of the company though.


 * Link Ozzy Osbourne
 * ✅  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "Hogan on-and-off for the World Heavyweight Championship during the next 1 1/2 years" - small numbers should usually be spelled out. Try "year and half" instead.
 * ✅  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "André would return but compete under a mask as part of a new team called The Machines" - Link The Machines (professional wrestling)


 * "felt more like a Saturday Night Main Event match" - Saturday Night Main Event needs to be italicized


 * "we wouldn't get a great-in-total WrestleMania until X" - Link WrestleMania X

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Well that was quick and painless! I see no further issues, including with links and references. Congratulations! See you next time.LM2000 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! The review was good, and the article is better as well. Good job, and thanks for your time.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)