Talk:Royal Rumble (1995)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Overall, it looks just fine - as usual with your articles. I suggest a little more context for the general reader to be able to follow along, especially in the lead. I will go through it some more and see if there is anything else. It looks like a very good job! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Gary isn't on at the moment and he helped me with Lockdown (2008) when it was reviewed, if it is alright with you I'll help solve these problems for now since I'm not doing nothing.--WillC 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The main event was the Royal Rumble match, which Shawn Michaels won after entering the ring first and lasting over 38 minutes." - what is the significance of this? I take it that 38 minutes is a long time?
  • Royal Rumble matches usually last about an hour. Since there are 30 in the match, lasting from number one to the last one left is a big thing in the match. I'll clear it up.--WillC 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is good. You cleared that up well. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my name is Will, nice to meet you.--WillC 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "stole The Undertaker's urn" - The Undertaker's article doesn't mention the urn until down in the article; there it is explained as his "source of storyline power". That, although unclear to me, seems rather important to understanding what is going on, what the effect of having the urn stolen might be.
  • I'll let Gary work on this one since I have no idea what to do.--WillC 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Also, unlink the dates per Overlinking and underlinking.
  • Okay.--WillC 23:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And good for the delinking also. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--WillC 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review. I added some information, so I believe all of the points above have been covered. Please let me know if anything else comes up. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a few more comments

• "although the shortened time between entries in the Royal Rumble match has been criticized" - in lead, it is not clear what this means.
• "Hart gained the advantage by focusing on injuring Diesel's knee" - although Diesel and his knee is mentioned several times prior to this statement, there is no further comment on the effect on Diesel's knee after Hart focused on it (unless I missed it). —Mattisse (Talk) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to address both concerns. As for the second one, it's one of those aspects of a staged fight. Bret Hart can attack Diesel's legs for half an hour, but that can all be pushed aside if Diesel makes a comeback. Diesel wouldn't necessarily even walk with a limp (or, at times, you can see a wrestler limping on the wrong leg when they forget which one the opponent has supposedly been attacking). Hart working on the leg is supposed to be a setup for the Sharpshooter, so I added that it (in reality, however, the Sharpshooter places the pressure on the lower back, but that part is conveniently left out of the commentary). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Good quality prose b (MoS): No MoS errors apparent

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers the whole event b (focused): Remains focused on article subjec

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Article is neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good job on the article! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)