Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:51, June 19, 2008 UTC.

SummerSlam (1988)
Self-nominator: I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. It had a successful peer review, was copy edited by several people, and had a very helpful pre-FA review. Because this is an older pay-per-view, there are books and magazines available to source the information, so it doesn't have the problem of reliable sources that a lot of wrestling articles have. All comments are welcome, and if opposing, please leave suggestions I can use to further improve the article. Many thanks! Nikki 311  04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Lulu.com is a self-publishing site, correct? What makes Ian Hamilton's book reliable then?
 * Please format the references with last name first, and in alphabetical order in the references section, makes it much easier to find the repeatedly used sources
 * Books and videos not used in the notes section should go into a "Further reading" section, not the references section.
 * Sources look good. Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thanks for the feedback. I added a different print source to back up Hamilton's claim. For the "references with the last names first", are you referring just to the References section, or does this apply to the Notes section as well? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a review of Hamilton's book by SLAM! Wrestling, where they praise the "extensive" research. According to  its official site, it was in the top 10 (6th) of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's  (WON) book awards.  Lastly, here are some reviews from people associated with SLAM! and WON.   Nikki  311  18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Last name first in both sections works best, honestly. It's just how these things are usually done in the humanities. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All completed. Nikki  311  00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - This is looking good, and I am close to supporting. This is all I could find during a read-through.
 * Comma after Madison Square Garden?
 * Development: At first use of World Championship Wrestling, provide an abbreviation as well. You can then use that abbreviation in the next paragraph, where a WCW mention or two would be useful.
 * "Those four events, along with the King of the Ring, are also known as the "Classic Five." Remove also.
 * Report, Background: Hyphen for most watched?
 * Link WWF Championship here.
 * Event: "The following contest was a rematch between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco of their WrestleMania IV match-up." Awkward wording. Try "The following contest was a re-match from WrestleMania IV between Dino Bravo and Don Muraco."
 * Link Frenchy Martin.
 * Slick is linked a second time here. I don't think it's needed.
 * The last match of the night was the main event match-up" Do we need match-up here? We already have match and main event here.
 * Aftermath: "in a match over for Savage's WWF Championship.
 * Hyphen for record breaking? Giants2008 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed all of these except the Bravo-Muraco line. I agree that it could be improved, and your suggestion might be the best phrasing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the line. Nikki  311  18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very fast response. Since I have no more objections, I declare my Support, and wish you good luck with the rest of this FAC. Giants2008 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - According to the Results, it says: "Brother Love Show with guest Jim Duggan", yet nothing is mentioned in the main body. Did nothing whatsoever happen worth to note? D.M.N. (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never read anything more than "it happened". It wasn't substantial or relevant to any storyline. Nikki  311  23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding Image:SS88poster.jpg and Image:Miss elizabeth2.JPG: neither is low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B) and both are missing certain necessary rationale components (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have fixed everything. Are they alright now? Nikki  311  05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using both "WWF Tag Team Championship" and "World Tag Team Championship"? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both are exactly the same, but I believe "WWF Tag Team Championship" was used as the name back then. It should probably be made consistent. D.M.N. (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I can't believe I didn't notice that. Actually, the title was referred to as the WWF World Tag Team Championship from the late 1970s until the 90s, and that's when it became known as just the WWF Tag Team Championship. I've made it consistent in the article. Nikki  311  17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Generally looks good. Gary King ( talk ) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, some basic problems:
 * Criterion 1a (prose): Almost entirely written from an in-universe perspective.  Unfamiliar readers will not understand that this even involves writers and entertainers and is not real.
 * Criterion 1b (comprehensiveness): No information about writing, production, or critical reception.
 * Criterion 3 (images): The fair use rationale for the image of Miss Elizabeth is very weak. Fair use requires critical commentary.  I don't see any critical commentary about Miss Elizabeth in the article. -- Laser brain   (talk)  05:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replies:
 * 1a: There are mentions of writers and storylines in the text.
 * 1b: Information about writing and production is rarely released because the company at the time was operating under kayfabe, or tat they wanted everything to seem real. Releasing that info would be in opposition to that, but I'll see if I can find anything more.
 * 3: I wasn't aware of that requirement. Is there a policy page that I can look at that would explain further what exactly is meant (or what constitutes) "critical commentary"?
 * Nikki 311  18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here and there, but not sufficient. Most of the article describes was various wrestlers did, but it is not framed as a fictional event. Imagine an article about a television show episode where you only described what happened in the episode.  Readers would not get that it is a show with a plot, production, etc.
 * Tricky indeed. Did you do a library search of prominent magazines and other books?  Might have to dig in a bit to get all the information, but the article is definitely not comprehensive without it.  As above, an article about a television show would never become featured without all the context, business, and production information.
 * Check out Non-free content criteria, item #8, but I'm actually striking that item because you do talk about what is depicted in the image. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't exactly like a TV show, so I think it is unfair to compare it to that, but I will do my best to find what I can. Nikki  311  22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per Gary King ( talk ) . (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC))
 * This is not a vote. Have you carefully reviewed the article against the featured article criteria? What about the issues I just raised? -- Laser brain   (talk)  14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - images and rationales look good. There were some revisions in their histories that were probably a little too high-res for non-free images (so I tagged with non-free reduced) but the current versions are OK. Kelly  hi! 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Thanks! Nikki  311  19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I know nothing about wrestling at all and I found reading this article extremely confusing. I reread it several times to figure out why I was so confused and I think there are two major problems:
 * 1) It very difficult to tell what is fictional and what is real. The article indicates that some feuds, for example, are part of a "storyline", but I had no idea what this storyline was. Also, all references to this "storyline" disappear after the "Background" section, so I was left to wonder: Is the storyline just a set up for a fight that is actually real? From Laser brain's comments above, though, and the some of the details of the fight, I suspect that the fight is not real, but this is never made explicitly clear to the reader. I believe that this article should be written using the guidelines of WP:FICT. That includes adding material as Laser brain has pointed out, about reception and writing.
 * 2) Because I have never seen a wrestling match and am not conversant with its jargon, it was never very clear to me what was happening in the fight and I soon tired of clicking on every term I didn't know. I wonder if the fight could be described with a little less jargon? The first time I read the article, I ended with the conclusion "they fought in a sort of fistfight manner". That is why I had to reread the article several times. I think that we can be assured that few people as ignorant as I are going to read this article, but certainly some readers will not have the familiarity that this article assumes.

As the other elements of this article have already been checked by others (the sources, the images), I think that with some additions and some careful and thoughtful rewriting, this article can become featured. Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to : To your second suggestion, the reason why there is a lot of jargon is because each individual move a wrestler performs has it's own unique name that it is referred to by others as a whole. I unfortunely cannot find a way the contest cannot be described with less jargon. All the moves performed should be wikilinked. Unfortunately that's the way it is, but each move has it's own unique name. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure each move does have its own name - every domain develops its own jargon. Every sport has its own jargon, science has its own jargon, and my field, literary criticism, has its own jargon. However, we have to at least attempt to make articles accessible to readers who do not know that jargon and to readers who only know some of it (see WP:JARGON). Since many of these terms are defined in plain English at Professional wrestling attacks and a whole series of other pages, I don't think such an attempt would be impossible. Awadewit (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I see some of the same issues that Laser brain and Awadewit have previously pointed out. Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Prose questions
 * "SummerSlam (1988) was the first annual SummerSlam professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by the World Wrestling Federation (WWF)." - does this mean there were SummerSlams that weren't produced by WWF?
 * I agree with Awadewit about jargon. In the lead I have questions about what an undercard is and what a storyline feud is (how is that different from a regular fued)?  It would also be nice to have more of an explanation of the moves.
 * Long sentences that might need to be broken up: Example (also an example of overly emotional language) "After defeating Crockett in the ratings war, McMahon created the Royal Rumble, an event airing for free on the USA Network in January 1988, which set a ratings record for the network with eight million households tuning in to watch the event. " Example 2 "To keep the WWF from having a pay-per-view market monopoly, Turner began airing monthly WCW pay-per-views, and both companies began bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue" (much better as two sentences)
 * Is the tagline really notable enough to go into the lead? That seems trivial to me.
 * "After WrestleMania III" - when was WrestleMania III? That will help me put things in proper date perspective
 * I don't quite understand why a section is named "Report". The three sections in this article could be individual top-level sections.
 * Background seems very in-universe. In fictional works, plot sections generally need to be more grounded into reality, and this is essentially a plot summary for this wrestling event.  It looks like the section tries to do this in some places but needs more work (especially in the first few paragraphs)
 * The event section has a similar in-universe sound - lots of so-and-so "attacked" someone, which is dramatic word phrasing for a scripted event
 * "JYD was disqualified after Jake Roberts attacked Rude" - who is Jake Roberts and why did his actions disqualify JYD?
 * I think the results would look better in a tabular format rather than a list that has two lines for each match.


 * Reply to Karanacs, Laser Brain, and Awadewit - I understand your concerns about jargon and in-universe writing, but I'm beginning to get really frustrated with this whole thing. For an event this old, information about writing, booking, and production just isn't available. Wrestling isn't exactly a sport or a scripted television show...it is a hybrid, and I don't think comparing it to either and requiring all the information for both is realistic. Wrestling, especially in the 1980s, operated in a fashion where they wanted everything to seem real, so they never released the sort of information you are looking for.
 * As for jargon and wrestling moves, I also don't think it is a reasonable request to explain every move in the writing. The moves are complicated, and the article would be four times longer than it currently is...not to mention, explanations of moves in detail would become tiresome to any reader. Now, I don't think things like a headbutt or dropkick need explaining, because those are pretty well known moves. However, in the article I have attempted to explain (in a basic manner) some of the move difficult moves, such as saying that in a Ghetto Blaster, the recipient gets hit in the back of the head. How much more are you looking for? What are some moves that you think could use more explanation? Furthermore, Awadewit commented "Every sport has its own jargon", which is correct. Can someone please point out a baseball Featured Article where a homerun, grandslam, or triple is fully explained? Can someone please point out a football Featured Article where a quarterback, turnover, or touchdown is explained? All of these terms aren't known to people who don't follow the sport, and I don't think it is fair to require such thorough explanations in a wrestling article, but not in other sports articles. Nikki  311  20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is highly unlikely you'd be able to find production details (even today, I suspect that info is just not available). Since that section can't exist, it is even more important that the rest of the article make it clear that this is highly scripted so that users aren't confused.  That might mean different word choices, it might mean adding in phrases such as "According to the pre-planned story", "The script dictated that", "The writers/developers decided", etc.  Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.