Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Year's Revolution (2007)/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 01:39, 21 January 2008.

Check external links

I have written the article recently, and it has undergone a successful peer review. I have decided to directly nominate the article at FAC, instead of GAN, because I believe the article meets all the Featured Article Criteria. Cheers, Feedback ^☎ 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not a support or oppose but is a concern that most of the article is sourced from the WWE website, which is not an independent source? I am unsure what the usual practice is with Pro Wrestling articles. The article is certainly comprehensive enough and while there are some stylistic issues, written reasonably well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The article is basically a recap of the event, and because WWE was the host of the event, it has many different articles including extensive recaps for each match and each show before and after the event; so everything I basically needed was what the site included. However, the minimum third-party sources in the article include information WWE.com did not supply. Also, there was no important backstage trouble or consequences to be added, so I didn't need information from sites with "inside sources" like WrestleView or ProWrestlingScoops (unlike December to Dismember, where the event influenced many contract releases and the fate of WWE's ECW brand). Feedback ^☎ 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:TheGiantTheKingThePoser.jpg needs fair use criteria for this article; it only has it for Cyber Sunday. — brighterorange (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Feedback ^☎ 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I know there is a push for WP:PW members to be the only group not allowed to vote on FACs from their own project, but I just don't think this is up to Featured Article level. A few of my concerns are:

Almost all of the sources are primary sources from WWE. As has been discussed in the past, writers paid by WWE are not considered reliable sources for WWE-related articles. It was mentioned in the peer review that this would prevent it from reaching FA level, but this has not been addressed.

Which statements in the article need back-up from third-party sources? The article is basically a recap of the shows and the event, which is nothing controversial or that can suffer from COI, when WWE writes its articles. They are facts; no need for third party sources to back them up. However, if you find a statement that needs back-up from a third-party source, then please answer the beginning question.

 Done -added third party sources to every match result and recap Feedback ^☎ 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A blog-style entry on about.com is cited 18 times. I'm not convinced that this should be considered a reliable sources.

About is a very reliable encyclopedia, and Eric Cohen may be seen as more reliable than any of WWE's writers (who make many many mistakes).

 Done - I have replaced the About.com link, with the recap from Slam Sports!

References are out of order in a couple of places.

Please mention where.

 Done NiciVampireHeart (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is confusing and unencyclopedia in several places and needs a thorough copyedit. I strongly recommend listing this article with Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors.

I need more opinions on this one first.

There are too many in-universe statements in the article. For example, "(Cena) tossed his foe’s hardened forehead into the steel ring post."

This is not an in-universe statement. This happened in real life, physically, in the view of thousands of people and millions watching on television. I don't see the problem with this statement.

This does not conform to WP:MOS, which states that names should be given in full the first time and that only the last name should be used for subsequent mentions.

The names are written fully the first time, and are written with only the last name or fully again in subsequent mentions. This is the guideline.

I don't think the picture of Kevin Federline is important enough to warrant inclusion in the article, as it seems to have almost nothing to do with this article (there is no mention of a connection between Federline and Booker T).

The picture kills 4 birds with one stone. It shows who Big Show, Kevin Federline and who Booker T are. And it also shows the reader that Booker T and K-Fed formed an alliance in an early stage, which eventually saw K-Fed intervene in the Champion of Champions match and help Booker T win and defend his championship. Feedback ^☎ 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to list it for copyediting, look for additional sources, address some of these concerns (and others that might be brought up) and then nominate it for GA status with a request for the reviewer's opinion on what else is needed for FA level. You're off to a good start, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by all of my concerns. While this article could get to GA level with serious copyediting and more sources, it is not at a FA level. Copyediting isn't something you need more opinions about--it is essential if this is to get above B-level. And it was the "hardened" (because, according to the storyline, Samoans have thick foreheads) part that was in-universe, although "tossed" isn't the best choice of words, either, and there are other examples that I could have also used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added third-party results for the show, and what I meant to say is that I think the article is written extremely well, and want more opinions on how it's written; to see if more people think it's badly written like you do. Feedback ^☎ 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the extra sources definitely helps. I do still believe that it needs copyediting. I don't think it's poorly written, but I don't think the prose is sufficient for this to be considered one of Wikipedia's top articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is very hard to read for someone not familiar with the ins and outs of wrestling. The opening line (after the lead) is already and an example "The November 6, 2006 edition of Raw began with Kevin Federline, who after interfering in John Cena's match the night before at Cyber Sunday, came out to the ring to challenge Cena one-on-one at Raw's first broadcast of the year on January 1". It is assumed the reader know what Raw and Cyber Sunday are, without knowing these the line makes no sense. When these words are that essential merely wikilinking is not sufficient (ie it does not give in depth extra information, but is essential for basic understanding). Such "jargon" phrases with key importance in lines are scattered throughout the article. In my opinion this article has to be thoroughly "dejargonised" (is that is a word) to make FA status. Arnoutf (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead explains that Raw is one of the brands, and the context of the article clearly state that it is a televised show. However, Cyber Sunday is a PPV that appears once a year and has special features others do no; so explaining to someone who really did not know what it is, would be like copying the Cyber Sunday article into this one. That is why a wikilink is very appropiate. However, I did add "Cyber Sunday PPV event" to the passage even though the article explains so later on. Feedback ^☎ 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.