Talk:WrestleMania XXX/GA1

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I will get to this within a few days
 * Thanks SNUGGUMS for taking up this review! :) But honestly, you can take your time. I can afford to wait one month until December because I will be more active then. starship  .paint   ~ regal  23:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, but unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this. Here is how it currently compares against the GA criteria.....

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: Almost. Here's some comments:
 * "In late January 2014 after the Royal Rumble event" → "After the Royal Rumble event in late January 2014 ✅
 * Nicknames aren't really needed in this case, just use the respective article titles.
 * "The local New Orleans newspaper" isn't really needed in "The local New Orleans newspaper, The Times-Picayune" ✅
 * Nolan Howell is from Slam! Wrestling, not "Canadian Online Explorer" ✅
 * Manual of Style compliance: Some italics errors as indicated below.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References layout: FN16 is missing its work, publish date, and accessdate parameters. ✅ [www.nola.com/festivals/index.ssf/2014/04/wrestlemania_xxx_a_roaring_suc.html FN65] is missing its work parameter. "PWTorch.com" should also read Pro Wrestling Torch. ✅ Los Angeles Times, The Times-Picayune, The Independent, The Baltimore Sun, and Forbes are print sources which should be italicized. ✅ "Canada Online Explorer" isn't needed for the "Slam! Wrestling" refs. ✅
 * Citations to reliable sources: Daily Mirror is not reliable, ✅ and I'm not sure about "HowStuffWorks".
 * No original research: FN86 (Pro Wrestling Torch) is dead, can its info be backed by another source? ✅ Also, how come some paragraphs throughout "Event" have inline citations while others don't? Seems to be scattered in terms of references.

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects: Meets the "PPV" guidelines listed at WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide
 * Focused: Looks good

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias: I'm not sure if "special" is really a neutral description in "special tribute" ✅

5. Stable?
 * No edit wars, content disputes, etc. There has been lots of back-and-forth editing lately, and even more between now and the time this was nominated for GA.

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: All appropriately licensed
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: The image in "background" is rather wide. Try using something smaller in place.

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Even if the concerns might not look extensive upon first glance, stability is a HUGE problem, so I won't be placing this nomination on hold. Renominate once everything is addressed and the article is more settled down.  Snuggums  ( talk  /  edits ) 04:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'm willing to work on everything else you mentioned here, but I'm not sure what I can do about stability. If people keep adding WP:OR or unreliable sources to the article, I'd just have to revert them. How do you propose to help solve instability? This waited for a GA review for around 6 months and might do so again. starship  .paint   ~ regal  04:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest page protection, maybe leave hidden notes in the article. I understand your concerns, though.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 04:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - I thought page protection was against vandalism or BLP violations? I think people are adding stuff in good faith but it either is WP:OR / unreliable / doesn't follow the structure of WP:PW for PPVs. I will try adding some notes here and there. Also regarding your comment about the large picture, I earlier tried to include a picture of the WrestleMania set, but it was deleted as a copyright violation. Panorama pictures are not copyvios and are thus acceptable. starship  .paint   ~ regal  06:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pages can also be protected for excess unsourced/poorly sourced edits.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 06:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Nevertheless, I will try to address the rest of your concerns in your review. I will notify you again when all of them are done or replied to. starship  .paint   ~ regal  06:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the next reviewer will pass it. Best of luck!  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 07:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've settled most of your comments. The remaining, which might require some debate, I'm leaving for the next reviewer. starship  .paint   ~ regal  03:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)