Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Elimination Chamber/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:27, 18 August 2010.

Elimination Chamber

 * Nominator(s): -- Nascar   king  22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel like this article could become a Featured List.-- Nascar   king  22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A bunch of unreferenced sections of prose + "the chamber has since rivaled Hell in a Cell as the most demonic structure there is"—two thumbs up for thoroughly professional, NPOV and encyclopedic writing.114.143.169.4 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't need a reference to know the Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell are two structures that when people step in it, it never ends well. Nascar   king  17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason the Featured Article and GA Nominations failed was because the Lead used to be one sentence. I added that sentence to make it look longer. You don't need a reference to know The Elimination Chamber is something no one walks out the same man. Nascar  king  20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the IP. First of all, a twos entence lede is not acceptable in an FL.  Second, the writing of those two sentences is lacking in the professional standard of writing expected in a featured list. (Seriously? "most demonic structure there is."... That would be an interesting phrase to use in a Buffy or Charmed article, maybe.  But it doesn't work here.) Add entirely unreferenced sections, such as "Brand and pay-per-view designation" This needs a solid, intensive copy-edit from someone who knows nothing about wrestling. Courcelles 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is more of an article than a list. --Golbez (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, we don't need references for pointless hyperbole, as it shouldn't exist in an encyclopedic article. Also, just because 1 sentence was too short doesn't mean 2 is just right. Have a look around the featured articles and lists and see what's expected. --Golbez (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, what the FLC states doesn't really make sense. I don't know what prose means. Nascar   king  22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a start, try reading our article on the concept. Courcelles 22:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried that method but no one ever responded for over a week so I just went ahead with this. Nascar  king  23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest withdrawal, it seems like this would be better suited to a peer review first. Plus, it may be beneficial to the nom if he reads up on what does and does not need to be cited, as well as the prose suggestion above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I know this is a reeply to something higher up and not to the comment immediately above.


 * I have researched the peer review, which was closed because you came to FLC. Thus, now no one can review it until you withdraw and go back to PR after doing some additional work.  I will suggest this time around you go to the talk page for the Professional wrestling WikiProject, which this article is a part of.  Simply post there that the article is up for Peer Review (see here for the one I used for the Glee (season 1) review, which got a quick reply).  Hopefully someone will come to your aid quickly this time around.  But first, withdraw the nom.  CycloneGU (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close, please. FLC is not a substitute for peer review.  BencherliteTalk 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to Peer Review. I made the same mistake going to FAC without knowing about peer review.  I feel this editor may be in the same boat I was, not knowing about the PR option.  I will also recommend that step to this editor as it can prove beneficial, then after a PR if the article is deemed ready by the reviewer come back here.  CycloneGU (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor knew about peer review, but didn't wait for comments before trying FLC (four days or so, not "over a week" as claimed). BencherliteTalk 00:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that afterwards. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Peer Review thing kind of connects to a ongoing Peer Review on the WrestleMania (1985) article. It still hasn't gotten a response in over two weeks. Doing a peer review for The Elimination Chamber and not getting a response either made me even more impatient. Nascar   king  01:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now, you are getting no peer review. In order to get one, withdraw this FLC and repost the request after the article history is updated (give it a few days, but check the talk page periodically).  In the meantime, start working on looking at some of the areas raised here (references, for instance).  Always feel free to ask for help getting a peer review going!  Usually one good review is enough, then at least there is a record of some work being done and you can later consider FLC once again.  It sucks sometimes, but on Wikipedia, patience is a virtue, and just sitting and not trying to get people to your peer review will get no results because no one knows it's there from the WikiProject in question.  See my comments above.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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