Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 WWE Draft/archive1

• "however, due to significance of the event". Missing "the" before "significance".
• "The 2010 WWE Draft marked the fifth time that the Raw and SmackDown brands were only involved". Should "only" be before "the Raw and SmackDown brands"? Doesn't seem right considering the later-discussed ECW absence.
• 2010 featured multiple people drafted in one pick." "in" → "with"? Also, should a similar change be made for "Overall, 21 employees from the company's roster were drafted in 19 selections"?

• No, because the picks were for draftees, because the draftees were selected in one pick not with one pick. To me it sounds better with with if the sentences had like the brands in them, but since its just a general statement, I believe in works better. --Truco ₅₀₃ 22:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "All but one draftee was a wrestler, that being the Great Khali's manager Ranjin Singh, who were both drafted...". Don't think "were" is the proper grammatical tense, since Singh is the only one referred to earlier. Perhaps consider something like "who was drafted along with Khali...".
• Background: "between April and March 2010". Feels like the months should be reversed.
• Aftermath: "champions that were drafted would carry their titles with them to the their new brand." Excess word.
• "in which Kidd and Smith were in unison and Neidhart consisting of a seperate draft pick". "consisting" → "consisted".
• Double commas around reference 14. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All other issues resolved.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "from said brands" not keen, prefer "from these brands"
• "made at random". - if this is a direct quote, (which it appears to be) it needs a direct reference.
• "by the brand on which " perhaps "for which"?
• "that employees were assigned to;" -> "to which employees were assigned;"
• live television and USA network are overlinked.

• Well the background section in itself is a new section made to start off the article and instances after here aren't linked, the lead is just the summary so the overlinking shouldn't apply. --Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As is Richmond, Virginia.
• "Divas;" move that semi-colon.
• "6 matches" six.
• Battle Royal -> Battle royal
• I'd prefer to see the two tables with identically headed columns having the same width for each column from table to table.
• Is "Aftermath" really appropriate as a heading?

• I renamed it to "Response and effects", although that could use tweaking if possible.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it SmackDown! or SmackDown? There seems to be inconsistency here unless I'm missing the point.

• It's SmackDown, in its current state. But in 2002, when the brands were first established, it was SmackDown!--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Raw is held in various countries which have different channels" a strange phrase, of course various countries will have different channels... And do you mean broadcast, rather than held?

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All comments resolved, those that need a second thought from you I have addressed above. Thanks!

--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Hope to get those completed ASAP.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While the draft as a whole confuses me with the way it goes down, since I haven't watched wrestling much since it's implementation I won't worry about details. Anyway, here are the issues I found:
  • "the first day was televised live for three hours on April 26; the second part, the "Supplemental Draft", was held on April 27" I'd replace the semicolon with "April 26, and the second..."
  • "All but one draftee was a wrestler, that being The Great Khali's manager Ranjin Singh, who came to Raw in the Supplemental Draft." I'd reword to "...was a wrestler; The Great Khali's manager, Ranjin Singh, came to Raw..."

Just the couple lead tweaks and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All done. Thanks ! --Truco ₅₀₃ 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• It should probably be explicitly stated (to avoid confusion with drafts in other sports, where players without teams are taken) that employees are taken from other brands and are not "rookies", so to speak
• "was available on the Internet, at WWE's official website" → "was available on WWE's official website"; I think it's clear that their website is on the Internet
• "in Richmond Coliseum in Richmond, Virginia" – the "in <noun> in <noun>" structure sounds a bit odd. Perhaps change the first "in" to "at"
• Should "draft" be capitalized here: "During the production of the draft"
• "authority figure characters" in a bit unclear; how 'bout "guest hosts were portrayed as figures of authority on Raw"?

• I sort of changed it, but our article has it "authority figures"--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Last sentence of the first paragraph: you don't need both "however" and "actually"
• Reference needed for the date of ECW's disbandment
• "2010 featured multiple people drafted in one pick" – you can be specific and say exactly how many picks featured multiple selections
• "four each by Raw and SmackDown" can be reworded as "four from each brand"
• "who came to Raw in the Supplemental Draft" – you should include that Singh was drafted with The Great Khali
• Throughout the article, you use the plural when referring to The Hart Dynasy (see also note F), but I think singular verbs should be used. Our article on them uses singular, and it's the same as "the Smith family"; although it's multiple people, the family is only one thing.

• The article uses the instances singularly because it is talking about all 3 members as a stable (3 or more people in a group). In this article, however, it is being used to refer to the tag team (the two wrestlers Tyson and DH) because they hold the tag team championships. In professional wrestling they refer to tag teams plurally because they are the "Unified WWE Tag Team Champions" not "Unified WWE Tag Team Champion", because both wrestlers are champions. (Natalya is a Diva and b/c the titles are for two wrestlers she isn't considered a champion).--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• Because of the semi-colon, you can take out the "with" before "the ECW brand additionally"
• Wasn't ECW involved between 2006 and 2009?
• "Since its original inception" – what other inception's have their been?
• "Since its original inception, annual drafts have followed since" – "since" is used twice
• "and to refresh the roster" – you already use "to", so it's clear that this is a purpose. Also, shouldn't it be "rosters" because two rosters are involved?

Roster selections

• Why is Divas linked but Superstar isn't?

• There is no article for it, but I did link it to the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees since it has an explanation of Superstars there as well.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Picky, but I think the reference should go after "Divas" in the first sentence.
• Is there a comma missing before "TitanTron"?

• No because the sentence is reading how the computerized system, which so happened to appear on the titantron, randomly selected the wrestlers.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "1 Diva–only draft pick" – there should be a hyphen, not an endash
• In Match number 3, why are only two members of the team listed as winners? This probably warrants a note.

• In a battle royal, wrestlers are eliminated until the winner(s) are left standing. The link should suffice for that.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note C: "drafted earlier in the draft" sounds a bit odd
• In the "Selections" and "Supplemental Draft" tables, the "Employee" column has one quotation mark around it

Response and effects

• I think the header would sound better as "Response and aftermath"
• "who switched brands on that night"
• "in combat with new Superstars" – not all of them are male, so would it be "new competitors" or something similar?
• "to previous drafts, this draft was the"
• "on the television ratings for WWE's programming" → "on WWE's television ratings"
• I don't think "Although not having" is grammatically correct; I suggest "Despite not having"
• "during the week of the draft were consistent" – should "draft" be capitalized?
• Twice in the second paragraph, I think "SmackDown" should be "SmackDown!, with the exclamation point

• Nope, SmackDown! was the name of the television program from 1999-2006. Afterwards, it was removed.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Reference 1 has a date of publication
• Reference 2: the title doesn't match and the date written you give is incorrect
• In reference 3, can you remove the terms to be highlighted from the URL?

• No because the only way to have found that page was through those highlighted terms, unless you know of a way, I would be more than happy to change it. For real though, the information is still there so I don't see how the highlights take away from it.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You format the citations to WWE Corporate three different ways (5 vs. 6/7 vs. 9)
• In reference 9, I think you're missing a quotation mark before "our"

• I don't quite understand what you mean.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The title of reference 11 shouldn't be in italics

• The template does that on its own, I have no control over it.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 15 is formatted differently from all the other WV citations

• Because that reference is published by Gerweck, but the info is from WrestleView, since WV and Gerweck are partner websites.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to curly quotes in ref 16's title to normal quotes (I'm sorry, curly things just really annoy me)

Overall, a nice article; all I have are nitpicks. Just another suggestion: I think another image can be added next to the "Selections" table. Anyway, once my OCD is satisfied, I'll gladly support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I will get to this tomorrow.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow, Monday.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything addressed, but those where I commented.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]