Talk:WrestleMania IV/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Nehme1499 (talk · contribs) 13:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

With the festivities going on and the finals session in January it's going to be a bit complicated for me to continue the GA assesment regularly. I think I should be able to finish by 30-ish days if it's not a problem. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Nehme1499 - Take your time mate. Merry Christmas Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! Nehme1499 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

The Copyvio Detector does raise some concerns, as it found a staggering 94.8% confidence rate relating to this website. However, with the website in question being a wiki page and the fact that other Wrestlemania articles listed as GA have the same "problem", I wouldn't be too worried. I would however like for someone who has substantially contributed to this article to clarify this point. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Nehme1499 - They are generally cases of manual WP:MIRROR websites. The pro wrestling wiki does copy a lot of it's information from Wikipedia. I'd ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems if you are worried. :). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the two revision histories and it is clear that the wikia copied the Wikipedia article and not vice-versa (as was expected). Thanks for clarifying the situation :) Nehme1499 (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries. It's super common. You sometimes also see some user's who create information on a wikia, and then copy-pasta it to WP without disclosure. It's technically not copyright (As they created the content), however, if it's not presented as such, it's impossible to prove. I'm glad this was the first way around. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Outcome

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:

Comments

Consdering the level of his involvement with the event, I find it highly suspicious that any mention of Donald Trump has been relegated to a footnote buried at the bottom of the article. The wikilink in that footnote also fails WP:EASTEREGG in that Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino has its own article. There is a Trump WikiProject, isn't there? I would suspect that they'd be just as eager to bury the whole affair, but I thought I'd ask. The fact that the article isn't tagged with that WP or WP New Jersey is a good indication that it should be scrutinized more heavily for wrestling-centric POV. A quick read reveals several obvious in-universe issues. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: I started reading through the article yesterday as I was intending to start the GA review today. I'm not acquaintanced at all with wrestling, meaning that my review would be from a very inexperienced point of view. I wouldn't have any problem doing the review, but by seeing you comment there are some details that I would never have noticed. I'm not sure if I'm the right person for this; if someone (even you) would like to help me out I would really appreciate it! Nehme1499 (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't aware of the plaza being an article, but that would be easy enough to link to. The actual location of the event wasn't at this location, Asif was held elsewhere simply with the Trump name. I could have a look round for sourcing and add information towards this.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Just throwing in some cents. But check out The Lapsed Fan review of Mania IV. It has a Meltzer interview that discusses the history of this and V. Apparently this was the first time WWF had a Mania bid. A production section for this event would be very useful and help. It would go a long way in improving the content. Trump bid for the event. Was given the rights and gave the tickets away to people who went to the casino. It was used like a boxing event. Really neat history.--WillC 05:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover, Lee Vilenski, RadioKAOS, and Nehme1499, is anyone actively reviewing this nom? I really don't see any substantive reviews above. Would everyone be ok with this review page being deleted so the nom can be restarted without losing it's place in-line on the nom page? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me, provided it still does get a look at :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm OK too with it being deleted. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007, Lee Vilenski, Nehme1499, the proper way to handle this is to leave this page intact, but change the GA nominee template page number from 1 to 2, which I have just done. The nomination retains its seniority, but is put back into the pool of nominations needing review, and should get picked up by a new reviewer. Once you've all seen this and had a chance to respond, I'll archive this review page, so it sticks around but doesn't get added to. Please don't delete it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.