Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Great American Bash (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 September 2008 [1].

The Great American Bash (2005)

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- iMatthew T.C.


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. This article has addressed all and any concerns brought up in it's GA and Peer reviews, as well as previous professional wrestling pay-per-view articles FAC's (such as SummerSlam (2003)'s). The article is readable to the non-wrestling fan, as it does not contain any jargon and is easy to read. The article is written out-of-universe, and contains reliable sources. Any concerns will be addressed. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

—Giggy 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the first two images, and fixed the deadline for the third. -- iMatthew T.C. 11:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first two could be fixed without replacing, but whatever. The link provided for the third image (here) doesn't contain the statement quoted. —Giggy 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced that image as well. iMatthew (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Reading the intro leads me to believe that a copyedit would be beneficial.

  • "It was the second such annual event..." "such" is unnecessarily generic. Qualify "second" more specifically please.
    • What do you mean "qualify second more specifically"? -- iMatthew T.C. 11:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, second what? Second Great American Bash? Second professional wrestling pay-per-view event? Second professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by WWE? "such annual event" adds no value in its current position since readers don't know what exactly it's referring to. BuddingJournalist 11:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if I add "second Great American Bash event" then it will contradict what you said in the bullet below. -- iMatthew T.C. 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of event (esp. "Great American Bash event"...unnecessary here, no?) is taxing to readers.
  • "portrayed either a villainous or fan favorite gimmick" How can a gimmick be "villanous"? Or is this some sort of wrestling slang that should also be linked?
  • "The name of a wrestler's character" Tension in tenses. Also, is this sentence necessary?
    • It is necessary to keep the article out of universe..do you have a suggestion on how to improve the sentence? -- iMatthew T.C. 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main event was Batista" There are more engaging verbs to use than forms of "to be" in this case (similarly dull constructs appear later, too).
  • "a championship that was to be won by the champion competing in matches against his opponent." Huh? BuddingJournalist 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Villanous is a non-slang term for heel. If another word would be of better use, suggestions are welcome. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • Current ref 33 (Kapur, Bob "JBL reigns..) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the publisher, and for the pwwew.net sources, they are only used in the article for SmackDown! results. PWWEW copies their results word-for-word from WWE.com, a reliable source. See [2] and [3], [4] and [5], [6] and [7]. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you just use WWE.com? Did you pay attention to my comment below about the statement in the lead?--SRX 15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to echo SRX here, if they copy word for word the WWE, just use the WWE so we don't have concerns about linking to a copyright violation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs removed from that site. iMatthew (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - The opening has been reviewed already, so I'm skipping it.

  • "This event helped WWE's pay-per-view revenue, which was $4.7 million higher than the previous year's revenue." I recall seeing something similar in a previous wrestling article here, and I don't like it any more now. How about "This event helped WWE's pay-per-view revenue increase by $4.7 million from the previous year." I may be copying myself from before, but I do think it's better.
  • Background: The sentence involving the 2005 WWE Draft should be split in two. I would have the first sentence be the explanation of the draft, then describe the event in another sentence. I also see that the real-life names in parentheses didn't last long.
  • "leaving Smackdown! without a top-tier championship, a championship used for the heavyweight division of Smackdown!." Way too wordy. This is more like it: "leaving Smackdown! without a top-tier championship for its heavyweight division." Even if this is meant to be out-of-universe, it still needs to be revised.
  • "who was the final draft pick in the 2005 Draft." Draft is being used redundantly. The first instance can be removed and it will remaini understandable.
  • "JBL and Orlando Jordan tried to attack Batista, but he countered the attack by attacking JBL and Jordan instead." I'm being attacked with attacks. Variation would be a plus here.
  • Chris Benoit doesn't need his first name given in consecutive sentences.
  • Prelimminary matches: No explanation for the Doomsday Device. This is an exception to the apparent rule.
  • As a common word, Arabic doesn't need a link.
  • One term that could be linked somewhere is tag team. This is a fairly well known word, but some may think that it's jargon.
  • Main event matches: (managed by Candice Michelle as the guest referee). Technically, this could be changed to (managed by Candice Michelle, who was also the guest referee).

A general note before I go: The move descriptions are much less wordy than the last wrestling FAC. Well-done. Unfortunately, this has resulted in walls of blue text. Can the blue possibly be reduced a bit? Giants2008 (17-14) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I am offended by that last comment by Giants, but is all good. Anyways, one thing I want to mention before I review it further, as people pointed out in the SS 03 FAC, the statement about wrestling being scripted should go to the background because that is what it basically is and it interrupts the flow of the lead.SRX 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, SRX. :-( I wasn't a fan of that, but I didn't mean to hurt you. My apologies. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay.--SRX 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completed your concerns, thanks! -- iMatthew T.C. 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more small batch of comments for this article.
  • Aftermath: "where it was announced that their match at SummerSlam would be a No Holds Barred match match..." Another match two words later.
  • I'm going to suggest moving the bit on the Batista-Guerrero feud and Guerrero's subsequent death to the end of the following paragraph. It's a little weird for me to transfer from his overdose to more on his feud with Mysterio.
  • It doesn't say in Guerrero's article that he died of a drug overdose; the page says that he was killed by heart failure, though past drug and alcohol problems contributed. Could probably use a reference anyway.
  • We don't need Chris Benoit and Orlando Jordan's full names twice in that paragraph. Just the first time would be fine, then use only their last names. Oh, and consider changing twenty-six to 26.0. Would match well with the rest of the paragraph.
  • Reception: "but that was reduced for the Great American Bash (2005)." Why is the year in parentheses? Come to think of it, I also saw this in the last wrestling FAC. Is this a standard I don't know about?
  • "rated the entire event..." Don't think this word is needed.
  • Before I make a decision to support this, I'd like to ask why there seems to be much less detail about the matches than the last wrestling page here. It actually looks like there are more details in the Background section than for the event itself. Here's one example: "Guerrero than tried to score the pinfall, but Mysterio countered by pinning Guerrero to win the match." It feels like something is being lost in translation. I'm sympathetic on this because of the need to avoid jargon, but I want to see what you think on this.
That's all from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the rest of your requests. To be honest with you, I think that removing jargon was a good idea, but I felt that SummerSlam went a bit too far. I feel that this article removed jargon and fully explains the terms without going overboard and without giving readers a headache. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offended once again :) If I am correct, you read it before many many many fixes were done to reduced the load of explaining terms, and it was cut down so it wouldn't "give you a headache."SRX 01:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry SRX, no offense intended! -- iMatthew T.C. 01:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • The first match on the card was between MNM (Johnny Nitro and Joey Mercury) (managed by Melina (Melina Perez)) - instead of using parenthesis within parenthesis, use brackets within the parenthesis.
    • In the event section, this was brought up in the SS FAC (I think), but instead of linking the moves all the way to "down to the ring mat," you should only link up to like "slamming." For example, "lifting him up by the throat and slamming him down to the mat." Reason is because it seems to repetitive because it is linked throughout the section. Another thing is that instead of saying "to the mat" over and over" you can just say "slammed him down" as it is established earlier that they are on the ring (mat), unless stated otherwise that they are outside.
    • The results table should be wiklinked because it's purpose is for a quick reference and tables are the only exemption from WP:OVERLINK.SRX 14:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completed with the help of Gavyn Sykes. iMatthew (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, why isn't the results table sortable? SRX 15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Prose—It's kind of OK, I suppose, and I must try to disregard my utter boredom at the topic.
    • "There was also a feud between ..."—not a good start to a paragraph. What exactly is "also" in relation to? The blah also featured a fued between ... could be a little better.
    • At least on paragraph needs to be split. "The main event at the Great ..." is a whopper. Puts off the readers to see a daunting mass of text. Help them through it. Tony (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All is done iMatthew (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: So far I've only got to the lead and background sections, but there's enough here to be going on with.

  • Confusing and awkward sentence in the lead: The main event was Batista versus John "Bradshaw" Layfield (JBL) for the World Heavyweight Championship, a championship that was to be won by the champion competing in matches against his opponent. Multiple issues here:-
    • Which of the two was the champion before the bout?
    • Repetitions of championship and champion make the sentence awkward to read.
    • "competing in matches" (plural) when the subsequent reference seems to be to one bout.
    • Somehow, it seems a bit redundant/obvious to say that the championship was to won by the champion fighting against an opponent. How else would it be won? There is a case for ending the sentence after "World Heavyweight Championship".
  • Second sentence of final lead para begins "This event..." Since you have just mentioned the following year’s event, you need to clarify that "this event" means the 2005 event
  • "Wrestlers often used a stage name" should be in present tense
  • The parenthetical form of John "Bradshaw" Layfield has changed, without explanation, from "JBL" in the lead to "John Layfield" here. I see that further on in the para he had become JBL again.
  • "announced a match between six wrestlers for an unannounced..." Eh? Suggest you say "for a new top tier..." and drop the unannounced bit.
  • "Instead, he won..." should be "Instead he had won..."
  • The phrase "...who was the final draft pick in the 2005 Draft" needs explaining. Does it mean "...who was Smackdown!’s final 2005 draft pick"? If so, to avoid the repetitions in the next sentence you could run the two together: "...who was Smackdown!’s final 2005 draft pick, making the World Heavyweight Championship exclusive to Smackdown!"
  • "The following week on Smackdown!, Batista faced Christian in a standard match". Was there a particular relevance in this otherwise undiscussed bout?
  • "After the match JBL successfully attacked Batista..." Was this in another match, or some piece of staged out-of-ring brawl?
  • The sentence beginning "Batista appeared..." needs reworking. I appreciate that the difficulty arises from your attempt to explain a "spinebuster" to non-fans like me, but I think "Batista appeared, and as JBL fled the scene, performed a spinebuster on Jordan – where the wrestler picks up his opponent, turns him around halfway, and slams him onto the ring mat" would be clearer, with less repetition
  • Could you say "At the No Way Out event," for the sake of clarity?
  • I think this comes from an earlier review suggestion, but I find the formulation after MNM (brackets within parentheses) awkward and difficult. Would it not be better to say "(Johnny Nitro, otherwise John Hennigan and Joey Mercury, otherwise Adam Birch)"?
  • "...in a rematch for the titles" (plural) – but only one championship title has been mentioned.
  • I don’t think "number-one" is usually hyphenated, but it is frequently capitalised as Number One

Sorry, that all I have time for now, but I'll try to come back and do the rest. I've done a couple of small fixes on the text while going through. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All is done iMatthew (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, on the Preliminary Matches section

  • Is the "managed by" information introduced in this section really necessary? It clutters the text with parentheses within brackets, and disturbs the flow. Too much tangential information, I would say.
  • Brackets within parentheses – suggest same treatment as in Background section
  • Repetition of "performed" – suggest change one of them to “executed”
    done
  • "titles" (plural) for one championship?
    done, see below comment
  • The "eighth longest reign" doesn’t sound particularly notable. Longest, or second longest, might be, but eighth?
    done
  • It’s not clear who was "using his legs to resemble a pair of scissors". If, as I believe, it was Booker T, then the sentence might be better as: "Booker T won the match, using his legs to resemble a pair of scissors and kicking Christian, who was bent over forward".
  • Is "got the pin" wrestler’s talk for "pinfall"?
  • "men in masks walked out" - what does this mean? Is there a better way of describing their entrance?
    done
  • "The men who appeared for Hassan’s entrance..." – are these the masked men who "walked out"? If so, the entire sentence should be rewritten along the lines: "These men interfered in the match, but Undertaker retaliated by removing them all from the ring".
    done
  • Last para of the Preliminary matches section is rendered nearly unreadable by the multiple names and the bracketing. The "otherwise" ploy won’t work here – there are too many names. Don’t know what to suggest, other than to remove all the names except those involved in the backflip and legdrop.

I’ll have to leave it again, but I will be back to finish.Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Managers are often intricate parts of matches. They may interfere on behalf of their managed wrestler, distract the referee, or other similiar occurences, so I'd say it's necessary. Titles shouldn't be plural. Championship=Title. If you pluralize it, it suggests it's more the one championship. A tag team Championship is ONE championship, ONE title, but TWO belts. So that should indeed be changed. I fail to see how "got the pin" is at all jargony, but yes, it would mean a pinfall. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've completed everything Gavyn Sykes didn't get to. iMatthew (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments - my final ones

  • Section heading "Main event matches": The section describes three matches, the third of which is called the "main event". In what way are the first two bouts "main event matches" rather than preliminaries?
    • Main event means most hyped matches, in literal terms the main event is the last match, but the most hyped matches are also classified as main events, which is why the other ones are there.--SRX 22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...that Mysterio and Guerrero’s families did both not want revealed" is badly mangled prose. Suggest: "...that neither Mysterio’s nor Guerrero’s families wanted revealed".
  • If it’s a safe assumption that "Bra and Panties" matches are exclusive to female wrestlers, then the sentence beginning "The only way..." can be rewritten with better grammar (and removed redundancy): "The only way to win a Bra and Panties match is to strip your opponent down to her underwear".
  • JBL is mentioned with his full and parenthetical names, while Batista is just Batista. Also, the manager information is given for JBL but not Batista. As this manager plays an active part in the bout, that’s fine. Re above comment on the naming of managers, I think the rule should be that they should only be mentioned when they participate in the event in question. But what do I know?
  • (Aftermath) "Batista defeated JBL in a to retain the World Heavyweight Championship". That's how it's written - something wrong here.
  • "...and not Ray Mysterio" – the "and" is redundant
  • "who had been suspected to be" should be "who had been suspected of being" or, more simply, "who was thought to be"
  • Steel cage match needs link or explanation
  • Saying that the feud ended with Guerrero’s unexpected death sounds as though his death was part of the wrestling scenario, and is a bit disrespectful, particularly as you say nothing more. I would replace this sentence with: "However, Guerrero died unexpectedly, of heart failure, on 13 November 2005". You might also mention his posthumous accession to the Hall of Fame (which I picked up from his biographical article)
  • 26.0 not necessary. 26 will do
  • Why is the pay per view number compared to the next year’s Bash, and the revenue compared to the last year’s?
    • That's the information found in the sources. iMatthew (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General note: I don't think this article was ready for FAC when it was nominated - too many problems with the prose, which a good peer review would have sorted out. It's looking a lot better now, however. I don’t find wrestling articles that easy to read, but I’ve done my best with this one, and I'd say it’s looking pretty good. I’d like to read it through again when the above have been attended to, but please note that after 11 September I will be out of touch for a while, so it would be best to respond quite quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. iMatthew (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The editors have worked hard to provide a non-jargonistic wrestling article, and have been responsive to my numerous suggestions. It is difficult to achieve a balance whereby the prose is comprehensible to the non-fan yet doesn't insult the aficionado. I think they have achieved their aim; no doubt minor niggles will arise over the prose, but that's true of many a promoted article. I will sign off with one final quibble of my own: the general form in the body of the article, where a wrestler has a stage name, is to give the stage name unlinked, followed by the real name, linked. In the lead, in the case of John Layfield, this format has been reversed. Other than that, well done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's sourcing the event's DVD popularity.SRX 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the person who added the  Done templates please remove them? See the WP:FAC instructions, they slow down the page and cause template limits problems in archives. I would remove them myself, but there are too many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I did it. In the future, please thread your responses (don't edit reviewer comments) and review WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Great_American_Bash_(2005)&oldid=1136095266"