Wikipedia:Peer review/Survivor Series (2007)/archive1

Survivor Series (2007)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Myself and LAX have decided to work on getting this article to GA status, but were need your help. Anybody who could stop by and give us some tips for improving the article, please do so.

Thanks, -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article but while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that December to Dismember (2006) is a FA and may be a good model here.`
 * I personally do not think that December to Dismember meets the FA criteria, so I generally tend to use SummerSlam (2007) as a model article to follow. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 11:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I am not a wrestling person, so glad you have a better model. There is always WP:FAR if you want to try and improve December to Dismember (2006) first or delist it as an FA if that fails. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the Montreal Screwjob (another FA) is only mentioned in the lead, as is the official song. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I see where you are coming from here, but generally professional wrestling pay-per-view articles use the first paragraph of the lead to give background information about the pay-per-view itself. The actual background section is about the feuds in the pay-per-view. So the official song and mention of the Montreal Screwjob should probably stay where they are, unless you have an idea of where they can be inserted in the article. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with them being in the lead, just noting that WP:LEAD says they should also be mentioned again somewhere in the body of the article. Perhaps the song could be something like "Wrestler X entered the ring to the strains of the official song ..." (no idea how the song was used, but you get the idea) and the Montreal Screwjob could be mentioned in context too somehow - despite ten years having passed since the Montral Screwjob, tensions between Y and Z were still high? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article needs a copyedit, here is an example from the lead The predominant match on the Raw brand was Randy Orton versus Shawn Michaels for the WWE Championship, which Orton won by pinfall after executing an RKO.[8] but "predominant" does not seem to be the right adjective here - the other brands list the "main match" and the "primary match".
 * Also avoid or explain jargon - in the same sentence above, RKO is jargon and should be clarified (it is link, but as a redirect)
 * Some sentences do not seem to be logical - for example in The main matches on the undercard included a 5-on-4 Survivor Series match between Team Triple H (Triple H, Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Kane) and Team Umaga (Umaga, Mr. Kennedy, Montel Vontavious Porter, Finlay and Big Daddy V), and ... it is described as a 5 on 4 match, but then the four member team is listed before the five member team, why not the other way around?
 * No, because in pay-per-view articles, the winning team generally goes before the losing team, but then again, that seems un-logical, so I'll fix it. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 11:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, again I do not know the wrestling convention. Even if the team sizes were made clearer it might help The main matches on the undercard included a 5-on-4 Survivor Series match between [the four members of] Team Triple H (Triple H, Jeff Hardy, Rey Mysterio and Kane) and Team Umaga (Umaga, Mr. Kennedy, Montel Vontavious Porter, Finlay and Big Daddy V), and ... Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that the Background section is longer than the Event section
 * They look the same size to me, but that seems a bit irrelevant. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 11:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is entertainment, shouldn't there be some sort of reception information in the artermath section? What were the ratings / number of viewers for the Pay per view event? What did any critics or commentators say about the show?
 * Per WP:MOS the images should be set to thumb to allow reader preferences to take over. Vertical images can be made smaller using "upright"
 * About 90% of the refs are from the WWE. If possible, more third party, independent sources would help a lot.
 * Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.