Wikipedia:Peer review/List of UFC events/archive3

List of UFC events

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've made large improvements to it and would like to get it to FL status

Thanks, Paralympiakos (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Bencherlite

• some dab links to fix
• I've made a couple of tweaks already, as you may have seen - getting rid of a non-free image, enabling multi-column references for browsers that support it, adding a section header before the list
• Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Chronological ordering says lists should be ordered from earliest to last, not the other way.
• "This is a list" is a sure-fire way of getting an oppose at FLC on prose grounds, because it's not a very interesting introduction to the list. Older FLs might still use it, but no recent ones.
• Prose could do with some tightening:
  • "UFCs first event" – needs a possessive apostrophe
  • "Traditionally" – doesn't sound the right word, sounds a bit too grand (or is that just my snobbery showing?)
  • "As of UFC 100, typically, most UFC events have held 11 fights in total at each event, though sometimes there can be more than 11 or less, due to last-minute injuries. Prior to UFC 100, it was common to see 9 fights per event take place." A bit complicated and appears to be contradictory. How about "Before UFC 100, there were usually nine fights at each event, but since then, most events have featured eleven. Some planned fights do not take place because of last-minute injuries." (NB (a) while normally you spell out numbers one to ten and use digits for 11, when using numbers either side of the cut-off in close proximity, the guidance is to pick the same format (b) I'm not sure how last-minute injuries lead to additional fights, but you may be able to reword this.)
  • "mostly sold on pay-per-view": don't use italics for emphasis
  • "numbered events" or "numbered" events? You use both
  • "Many of the numbered events .... aired for free in the U.S. on Spike TV." Again, a little tangled, and I'm left unclear as to whether the shows are live or recorded: 'The "numbered" events are usually broadcast [live?] in the U.S. on pay-per-view, although where the event takes place in a significantly different timezone (for example UFC 120 in England) it is often aired for free [live or later?] on Spike TV. Some such events have been broadcast on pay-per-view with poor results: UFC 72 from Belfast, Northern Ireland, had a buyrate of 200,000 viewers, which is the lowest figure to date."
  • Are the shows broadcast outside the US, incidentally?
  • "In July 2009, the UFC held its unofficial..." but a few words later "officially" - which is it?
  • "they created UFC 37.5" - you've used "the UFC" in the singular form e.g. "the UFC holds", so be consistent: either "it created" or "the UFC hold", I think.
  • You don't need to wikilink "countries", I think readers will be familiar with the concept...
• Table
  • I'm not sure we need 90% font size
  • Your numbers need to sort correctly: use {{nts}} for the attendance and event figures (then you won't have to use "001"-type hacks
  • I don't think you need italics to show future events – after all, the date shows it, as does the lack of an attendance figure
• I've not looked at the referencing or source reliability, but will perhaps take another look later. Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My comments

Thank you for the long review. A few things that I'll mention now:

• The only reason we have it in reverse chronological order is so that readers can see which upcoming events are scheduled. I doubt many would scroll down to the bottom. In case this needs to be done, is there any way to quickly do, so that I don't have to manually move each?
• Things like the font size and "This is a list" were already in the list before I started work on it, but I saw no reason to change. Could you please tell me which font size is preferable?
• UFCs vs. UFC's, is a tricky. I've always been told that organisations that are shortened to letters never have an apostrophe. I could be wrong on that one.
• "Traditionally" - sure, I can change this. I could've gone with "Usually" or "formerly", but I felt these may be a bit too simple. I'm not trying to portray snobbery whatsoever.
• Prose, fair point. I wrote that in one sitting, so I'll get down to that. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)