Talk:WrestleMania 2/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LM2000 (talk · contribs) 08:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Opening comments

I had intended on reviewing this earlier but I saw this disappear from the WP:PW alerts and assumed someone else had gotten to it before I had the chance. This is my first time reviewing so it should be an interesting experience.LM2000 (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I always enjoy doing reviews, and I hope you do to. I'll do my best to answer any questions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your time LM2000, I have made some changes to the article as below. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• WrestleMania professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by the World Wrestling Federation - Add (WWF) after World Wrestling Federation, the acronym is used repeatedly throughout article.

I agree. I will change Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• (The first WrestleMania was available only on a pay-per-view basis in select areas) - Is there any way to take this out of parentheses? I'd recommend making a footnote.

I've made it a note. Makes perfect sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski it's in between periods like ". [a]." Should be like ".[a]".

 Done - My mistake, edited it too quickly. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• At Chicago there was a 20-man battle royal - comma between "Chicago" and "there"

 Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Main body

• The first paragraph in "Background" is exclusively about celebrities. This should be turned into a section like WrestleMania 31#Celebrities with a see also link to List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania.

Ok, I took a look. Makes sense. I'll transfer this into two sections. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Likewise, the second paragraph is about broadcasters. There should be a section like WrestleMania 32#Broadcasters.

Same as above, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#Requests for comment, the first sentence in the storyline section should be simplified to:"The card featured twelve matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF. Storylines were produced on primary television programs..."

I think I changed this correctly. I didn't realise this was part of the MOS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Should there be a mention about Pedro Morales and Bruno Sammartino wrestling their only WrestleMania match in the battle royal?

Hmm,  Not done - Where would it go? I feel that this would be suitible for the aftermath section, but only really as a final sentence.

Yea, maybe it's not suitable. Might even be considered trivia. I personally thought this was a weird fact considering their importance to the history of the company though.

• Link Ozzy Osbourne

 Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Hogan on-and-off for the World Heavyweight Championship during the next 1 1/2 years" - small numbers should usually be spelled out. Try "year and half" instead.

 Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• "André would return but compete under a mask as part of a new team called The Machines" - Link The Machines (professional wrestling)

 Done

• "felt more like a Saturday Night Main Event match" - Saturday Night Main Event needs to be italicized

 Done

• "we wouldn't get a great-in-total WrestleMania until X" - Link WrestleMania X

 Done

External links

• Why is ⍌234⍍ linked?

It's something to do with the date transfer tool I've been using. Not sure why. I have edited it. It should have been a category for April events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well that was quick and painless! I see no further issues, including with links and references. Congratulations! See you next time.LM2000 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you LM2000! The review was good, and the article is better as well. Good job, and thanks for your time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)