Talk:Elimination Chamber/GA3

GA Reassessment

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

Following a request (which should not have been removed from the talk page), I will be reassessing this article against the Good article criteria in the coming days. If the article meets all of the criteria, it will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Geometry guy 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose needs some work, as it is confusing and not concise in places. I can copyedit a little myself, but cannot be sure how to fix some sentences. For example: "Prior to the introduction of the Elimination Chamber match, WWE originally only promoted two matches in a caged environment, the steel cage and Hell in a Cell matches." I would cut "originally only" unless there is some point being made here. More comments to follow...
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I will look at this more closely in due course, in particular, the lead.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	With the exception of About.com and the Wrestling Almanac, this article is almost entirely sourced to WWE. That does not seem reasonable, given how long the even has been running. The article relies extensively on primary sources, mostly WWE. The two sources for the DvDs are primary: are there no reviews? What about reviews of the shows themselves? Also, what makes 411mania.com a reliable source?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Excluding 411mania.com, the History Origin section is entirely uncited, andthere is plenty of material needing attribution here: "first type of cage-based match in professional wrestling", "excess of on-screen talent" and "continued the tradition of its predecessor". There are other citation problems. For example, reference [1] (to www.wwe.com/inside/specialtymatches/eliminationchamber, which is also reference [7]) consists of only 5 sentences: these do not support the first citation in the lead, and are not enormously helpful for the other two citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues to date
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The upcoming 2011 event deserves a (reliably sourced) mention. There is no discussion of safety issues, nor any discussion of reception/reaction.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is some repetition in the prose. I may add further suggestions in due course.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Care should be taken in this, as with all wrestling articles, to avoid an in-universe viewpoint. For instance, Note 3 refers to an event that may well have been staged, but no indication is given of this. The article should not promote the "brutal, dangerous" idea.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The European DvD has now been released and the 2011 event will take place shortly: see under broadness.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Also fine, but if there are any free images available of competition within the chamber that would be a nice addition.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reassessment discussion

I'll check back in a few days to see if progress is being made. Otherwise, if GA problems remain unaddressed, I'll delist the article so that it can receive a fresh review at GAN. Geometry guy 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll work over the article and see what I can do, it might take a few days if you can hold off on demoting until then. Afro (Talk) 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Sure! I don't like to delist articles - especially not when improvements are being made. Geometry guy 14:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about 3a. The 2011 Event has not even occurred yet so there's really not much we can put other than what's already mentioned on the table at the bottom.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed, as long as additional sources are not provided, the prose above the table should simply summarize the key information in the table. Geometry guy 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll handle the prose issues today at some point as soon as I find the time to do it.--WillC 08:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I finished a copyedit of the article. It seems fine to me at this point prose-wise. It does repeat a time or two, but they are relevent to the point being made. Now I must be honest, in my opinion this article could be much better. It can be sourced better, but I've been told it will be sourced better soon, so that is not a problem. While a safty and injury section can be made. The dangerous aspect isn't entirely in-u, because some have legit been busted open, and RVD or Benoit hurt their neck in one of the first matches. I also recall someone legit had to go to the hospital afterwards. So that would be good information to add. A reception section is a must. If I find time I'll add a reception section myself. Because reviews of the idea, matches, events, etc should be easy to obtain. I'm surprised at how much information this was missing it made it to GA honestly.--WillC 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There is still much to be done, but given the positive response by editors to this reassessment, I am extending this hold period for another week, until Sunday 13 February, when I will revisit the article's GA status again. Geometry guy 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well good.--WillC 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think theres enough information to build a reception section. Afro (Talk) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty. Event reviews will tell what was thought of the event. Polls held on WWE.com, etc would a give idea of the fan reaction. There is a way to get a reception section in this article.--WillC 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hope so. I would also advise that it is important to maintain focus: don't add material just because I say so, or in a formulaic way according to some guidelines. This article is about the Elimination Chamber, and you should include material according to whether it informs readers about the subject. To meet criterion 3 (broadness/focus) you have to imagine you are uninformed about the topic: what would you like to know? Geometry guy 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of progress on "reception", I am assuming that a longer timeframe is needed to address this issue. Therefore, I will be shortly delisting the article, with thanks to all for the improvements made so far. To avert fears of a long and painful renomination, I would like to offer to editors that once they believe broadness issues have been addressed, and renominate the article at GAN, they can contact me for a review if they wish, and I will respond as swiftly as I can. (I will not be offended if they seek another reviewer instead!) Geometry guy 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and everything. Sorry I never got around to the reception part.--WillC 05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)