Talk:Royal Rumble (1993)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Sorry for the delay in reviewing; Christmas and real life got in the way! Overall, the article is well written, referenced, organised and illustrated. I have a couple of suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• "and the matches that took place at the event had pre-determined outcomes that had been decided by the company." - please simplify sentence.

Background

• This section introduces a lot of information in short, choppy paragraphs. I don't think the section flows well overall; can you please work with the paragraph structure and sentence content to make it more cohesive? Perhaps an overview paragraph at the start of the section, rather than jumping straight into explaining the feuds, then provide further explanation of the individual feuds?

Event

• "Jannetty gained the early advantage, knocking Michaels out of the ring and diving onto him. He attacked Michaels by jumping off the top rope" - did he dive onto him, then climb up and jump off the top rope, or are you explaining how he dove onto him? I guess my question is, is this one dive/jump or two?
• "Bigelow attacked Bossman prior to the match and controlled the beginning of the match" - how?
• "Tito Santana and Rick Martel were in the ring at the same time; they went fought each other immediately" - please fix.
• "Yokozuna, weighing over 500 pounds" - how much in kilograms?

Aftermath

• Good. Like the Background section, there is a lot of information in a small section, but it doesn't matter so much because it's not introductory text.

Results

• I would move Royal Rumble entrances and eliminations into this section, but that's just a suggestion.

References

• Some of the citation templates have changed and no longer autoformat dates. Can you please change dates such as "1993-01-16" to "January 16, 1993"?
• Reference 24 (Royal Rumble: Facts & Figures) is a dead link.

Images

• All good.

It's very close to GA, so I don't have a huge list of suggestions. So I can happily pass the article, can you please improve the flow of the Background section and fix the few referencing problems? I've placed the article on hold for one week to give you time to do this. Regards, Somno (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have attempted to address all of these concerns. Please let me know what else (if anything) is required when you have a chance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations, this article meets GA criteria. I believe there could be further expansion in the Background and Aftermath sections in the future, but the article is sufficiently broad and focused for GA status. Somno (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)