Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Your House 1/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted 17:01, 6 December 2007.

In Your House 1

edit

Article recently passed GA. I have since added a load more sources to the article (see here), and I feel it is now ready for FA status. If there are any problems, I will sort them out. Thanks, Davnel03 13:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - this being the 1st such PPV, I think it should be (briefly) made clear in the article. Its not a serious issue, but I think somewhat necessary. K a r n a (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're probably right. I'll try and look for sources, and I'd like one or two more opinions on the point you've raised. Davnel03 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if the reader wants to know, there is a link to the main In your House article. Feedback ☎ 17:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not a Feature Article level article in it’s current state, failing on a number of areas.
  • Sources – uses questionable sources such as TWNP, the Wrestling Information Archive (a 100Megsfree.com site that looks like a personal site) and The Other Arena, yes they’re “just” for results but in an FA article these things matter.
  • Yes, sources are a bit of a problem. There aren't many big reliable sources for a PPV like this that are outside the wrestling world. I will keep looking for other sources though. Surely the ones in the article at the moment are OK? Its not like their telling "a lie" as such, they are telling "fact". Davnel03 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well “surely” is the problem – since they’re not really reliable sources how do we know for a fact that they’re not telling a lie? That’s the point of being “reliable” MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They ain't telling a lie though. The shows happened, no one can change it. It can be easily verified by different sources. That source is only used for the results. Davnel03 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of “Wrestling Slang” – best example I can give you is the word “Kayfabe”, to a non-wrestling fan what is that? It’s a made up word really, an “Insider term” which can easily be replaced with more commonly known words and phrases that are more instantly recognizable. This isn’t a wrestling fan article, but an Encylopedic entry, possibly featured on the front page one day – it needs to be more accessible to non-wrestling fans. I’m not crazy about the way it’s done but it’s not a problem, just a personal preference so issue is removed. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a user wants to know what a certain word means, why can't they just click on the link to find out more details? If I didn't use these words, surely it would sound completely in-universe? Davnel03 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree and so did the person reviewing Bobby Eaton for FA – if a non-wrestling slang word such as “storyline” etc is used instead of the totally made up word “Kayfabe” it’s more accessible. Clicking a link is okay if a reader wants to know more – not if they want to know WHAT it means at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing something here, I said replace the word kayfabe with something that's not a word made up by wrestlers and wrestling fans. Not just removing it, it's not that hard to do. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, what could I replace it with though. In these two examples, I think it would be better removing kayfabe and not replacing it: "...however, Sid interrupted and kayfabe turned on Michaels, powerbombing him three times." and "Hart and Yokozuna interfered in the contest, kayfabe attacking the New Headshrinkers, signalling a disqualification." I think it would be better just removing kayfabe. However, if I was to replace it, what/how could I reword it? Davnel03 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative is that the first time you use a slang word, you define it. Then the reader know what the word means, and you are free to use it in the article afterward. Is that a good compromise? Then: "Sid, in what was a work (a scripted moment made to look real), interrupted and turned on Michaels, powerbombing him three times." and "Hart and Yokozuna, as part of a worked storyline, interfered in the contest, attacking the New Headshrinkers, signalling a disqualification." I hope that gives you some ideas. I'm just rushing right now, so my feelings won't be hurt if you change the wording around or reject this idea outright. Nikki311 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In so many places this article blurs the line of reality and storyline too much, presenting wrestling storylines as too real, too “in universe”
  • The Citation listed in [3] needs to be improved, since the page is a long list of results each time it’s used the “date” should be listed to help readers find it instead of giving a blanket reference to the page and effectively say “Here you go search for it”. I’m having a hard time finding the specific details on some events so it really should list the date it happened to make it easier to find & verify.
  • I would direct it to the specific place, but the website doesn't allow you to do that, so not much I can do there. Everything that has [3] next to it did come from there. If there is anything that seems questionable, leave a note of it. Davnel03 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you can do, and what I’ve had to do is use the “date =” portion of the citation and then put the date of the show, it’s an easy fixpoint to search for on the page and it ensures that anyone can quite easily verify the citations. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done – You cited the date of the first and the last citation – still leaves over 20 citations without a specific date that someone has to go hunt for. What I’d like to see were SEPARATE citations with the specific date each time. Yes they’re almost identical but this way we can actually CONFIRM all the citations without having to play Sherlock Holmes. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro is very short and has no flow, reads almost like a bullet list without the bullet points.
  • Several places the text has very little flow, it’s just short almost “telegram like” sentences with little flow or connection to each other.
  • admitting that it was Sid who told Shawn Michaels to get a bodyguard – that’s wrong, it was Dibiase not Sid.
  • DiBiase announced that he and Sid were working together for a while – granted I’m no English major but shouldn’t that be “Had been working together” here?
  • The mention of Sid & Dibiase staring Diesel down during an interview segment seems totally pointless and trivial since – NOTHING HAPPENED.
  • and Hakushi, who was with manager Shinja for most of the rivalry – Why is it important to mention that he was with Shinja for most of the rivalry? He was his manager, Shinja wasn’t dropped as a manager until after the IYH so this just seems strange to mention and hurt the sentence in general.
  • I didn’t object to noting that he had a manager, that’s file – but “for most of the rivalry” indicates that it changed over the course of the feud and that it was important.
  • (accompanied by The Roadie and Hakushi, who was again with Shinja). , the end parenthesis should probably be after Roadie. And the use of “Again” makes it seem like Shinja was gone for a while, then returned and that this is actually important to the angle.
  • Something wrong with that sentence as a whole. It reads like Bret and Ramon were facing Jarrett in a Handicap match.
  • According to [1] :
  • QUOTE: Action Zone - 4/23/95: Jacob & Eli Blu (w/ Uncle Zebakiah) fought the New Headshrinkers (w/ Capt. Lou Albano) to a double disqualification at 7:34 when the Smoking Gunns made the save for the Headshrinkers against the Blu Twins after Fatu was double teamed on the floor by WWF Tag Team Champions Owen Hart & Yokozuna, who appeared ringside late in the match; after the bout, the Headshrinkers cleared Owen & Yoko from the ring before posing with the tag title belts and celebrating with the Gunns. Bret Hart & Razor Ramon defeated WWF IC Champion Jeff Jarrett (w/ the Roadie) & Hakushi (w/ Shinja) at 12:09 when Bret reversed a small package by Jarrett, putting Razor on top for the pin
  • The article is incorrect, and I have therefore changed the sentence. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ramon [[pinning Jarrett. – check out the bolded part.
  • While the short feud with Hakushi gets a lot of text the much longer, much more developed and heated storyline with Jerry Lawler is summed up in one line basically? If you’re going to go to the trouble of recapping the lead up to the match at IYH you really need to give more details than this.
  • The Lawler-Hart storyline was much more spread out in terms of time - starting in 1993 and ending in 1995. Their wasn't much of a lead-up for that match unlike there was with the Hakushi match. I'll double-check with "The Other Arena" sources, and see whether there was more of a backstory leading into IYH 1. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bret dedicated the match to his mother… why? What led to this? What’s the significance of this? I don’t remember why but it wasn’t just pulled out of the blue.
  • after kayfabe accidentally making Montoya pin himself – Montoya pulled a Colin “Bomber” Harris and pinned himself? I’m thinking that it was Jarrett that was pinned, not Montoya himself am I right? If so then the sentence is very unclear.
  • According to [2]:
  • QUOTE: Aldo Montoya pinned WWF IC Champion Jeff Jarrett (w/ the Roadie) in a non-title match at around 5:30 when the champion pinned himself by not lifting his shoulder out of a back suplex; Jarrett was originally announced as the winner and his music played until the referee raised Aldo's hand.
  • I've changed it to go with the source, but something still seems weird. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No love for the tag team title match that actually had a bit of history to it as well? At least as much as the Bret/Hakushi match.
  • I doubt Stephanie Wiand will ever get her own article, why not just leave it delinked instead of redlinked?
  • The fact that Lawler’s “Mother” is presented as totally legit and really his mother is laughable, come on now
  • I didn't watch the PPV, and don't know whether it was Lawler's mother or not. I'm guessing it wasn't Lawler's mother, and have thus added the word "kayfabe" just before the bit about his match with Hart. Davnel03 09:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite thehistoryofwwe.com – go there and read their report on the PPV you’ll see that it wasn’t a “storyline mother” in the way Shelton Benjamin’s mama was but some young chick about half of Lawler’s age, I think that’s an important detail. MPJ-DK 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “Aftermath” section is a bit weak, doesn’t mention the Diesel/Sid return match that Diesel won or anything.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I think the article has improved quite a bit since it was nominated, I still think it needs more information on how the Hart-Lawler feud played into the In Your House storyline (Lawler convincing Hakushi that Hart was racist, waiting until a match was signed between those two, then criticizing Hart for not facing him [Lawler]). It was a big part of the event, so it should be mentioned. Aside from that, I just wanted to give my view of a couple of sources. The Other Arena seems okay to me. It's an edited site, and all of the pay-per-view recaps that I've read have been very accurate. In addition, Wrestling Information Archive is a quality site. It's run by one person (as far as I know), but it's a great source for reliable wrestling information. It's cited in many articles as a reliable source. It doesn't report news (aside from updating results or reporting deaths), so it's definitely not a dirtsheet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Chance

I'll be very clear. This article has zero chance of showing up on the Featured Article pages of Wikipedia. If the Montreal Screwjob couldn't make it to the FA of the day, this has no shot whatsoever.

I only have to take the first lead paragraph to explain: In Your House 1 was the first of the In Your House professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event series produced by the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). It took place on 14 May 1995 at the Onondaga War Memorial in Syracuse, New York.[1][3]Ok, I get it. This is starting on rough facts. First, it states that it was the first of the In Your House event series, not the first-ever PPV. To an outsider, or even to a wrestling fan skimming through, that would not be clear. As a headline, starting the article, it presents no interest for the reader to read whatsoever. So it's the first, so what? Summarize something. Create a lead sentence.

That is the lead-sentence. I see nothing wrong with it. A similar sentence is used on December to Dismember (2006). I cannot see what the problem is. Davnel03 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main event that was shown on PPV was a WWF Championship match between Diesel and Sycho Sid, which Sid won by disqualification after Tatanka interfered on Sid's behalf. No, no, no. The main event between the two makes sense. Someone can understand that. then, when you say Sid won by disqualification, you need some explanation. Expand on that. Not everyone knows what a DQ is. Not everyone knows exactly what interference Tatanka was involved in, either. This is way too in-universe. You would need another few sentences to make it readable.

Linked disqualification and have added a bit. Davnel03 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main matches on the undercard were Bret Hart versus Hakushi and Hart versus Jerry Lawler.Two matches, but the wording is jumbled. Was it a tag team match? Why did you mention all four wrestlers at once? Who even said these were the main matches on the undercard? You?

I've reworded it fully. Davnel03 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hart defeated Hakushi with a Victory Roll, but lost to Lawler after Hakushi, along with Shinja interfered, helping Lawler to win.[3] Same prolems as before, Who is Shinja, what did he do? Simplify it.

Shinja is Hakushi's manager. I've explained that a little now. Davnel03 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other main match on the undercard was a Handicap match with Razor Ramon versus Jeff Jarrett and The Roadie. There were three matches that took place after the PPV had finished.[1][3] The PPV received a 0.83 buyrate, equivalent to about 332,000 buys.[4] The other main match? Who cares? Main match is not a wrestling term. Main event is. Undercard is. Make up your mind. To keep standard, you would add a highlight about the match, similar to the other two. You stated there was a match between Razor Ramon and JJ and Roadie. Ok, what happened? Why did you lose focus from what you were writing about each one before?

Addded a bit about the result of the contest. Davnel03 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last one concerning buyrate is fine. No complaints, except it is in a paragraph on the wrestling matches! Keep clear and keep in-perspective.

Yes, OK. I've added bits as a result. Davnel03 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've been rough, but you won't get a Featured Article or even a Good Article is no one is honest. I only focused here on the first paragraph; the rest is probably just as horrendous.

--Screwball23 talk 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples would help. Davnel03 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object- I had so many problems with the first few lines. To-whit:
  1. "In your house" name is not explained. Is such an explanation available somewhere?
  1. Opening sentence really should explain that it was an event. Then you can go on to say it was the first of a series
  1. I know nothing about wrestling, but in your lead, you seem to outline a dichotomy between the "main match" and the "undercard". That's fine, until the puzzling "The other main match on the undercard was..." Eh?
  1. "There were three matches that took place after the PPV had finished" interesting, but not really interesting enough for the Lead that should summarise the main elements of the whole article
  1. "The PPV received a 0.83 buyrate, equivalent to about 332,000 buys" English is my first language, but I didn't understand what that meant
  • I'm not very good at explaining things like that, but I'll give it a go. Right, the reference next to it goes down to the particular part, and I've (deliberately) put a quote next to it, which reads: The buyrate reflects the number of homes which purchased a pay-per-view broadcast; 1.0 roughly equates to 400,000 separate homes ordering the event.” This means basically that 1.0 = 400,000 buys. Therefore, 0.83 is about 332,000 buys. This means that 332,000 people bought the pay-per-view when it aired. Hope I've made that clearer for you! :) Davnel03 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Report"? Not encylopedic language. Wikipedia is not a repository of match reports.
  1. "The pay-per-view was the first ever under the In Your House banner, which signalled the beginning of the WWF's monthly pay-per-views." Sentence needs a lot of work I'd expect an event called xxxxxx 1 to be the first under that banner, so "first ever" seems overkill. "The pay-per-view" - are you using that as an odd euphemism to refer to the event, or are you specifically referring to the purchasing mechanism, (in which case it doesn't really flow)? In what way does a marketing banner that makes no reference to payment or months signify the start of a new monthly method of payment?

This is a classic case of an article lovingly worked on by devotee(s). I strongly suggest you take it to Peer Review or the league of copywriters for non expert review, as it's currently in poor state for non afficianados. Sorry, because you've clearly worked hard on it. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, while I'm glad you're improving the article (and happy to have been the prompt for some small part of it) the above are examples of problems I've found, rather than a checklist of things to fix to gain my support. I'd be happy to do the latter if the article were closer to FA quality, but IMHO FAC is not for fixing articles with so many basic copy issues that need fixing. I urge you to request Raul to close this nom, work with a copyeditor (or several) who know nothing about wrestling and then come back here. I know FAC can be annoying... I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt... but the advice given here is well-intentioned and usually, once you can stand back from the candidate article, you'll agree it was on the nail. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I would prefer it if you looked at the remainder of the article. Davnel03 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clearly fails criteria 1a - "well-written" as it is not well-written.
    I further note the opposition by experienced editors.
    I further note the insatisfaction of the experienced editors with the response given by the nominator.
    I suggest the nominator ask for help from the copy-editing league and peer review and more in order to improve the quality of the writing style.
    I further note that articles recently off GA are often not FA status worthy.
    --Keerllston 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but instead of criticising without foundation, here are some pointers...
    • Opening para, three really short sentences. And "It took..." "It was..." makes for poor prose and would put a lot of people off straight away. It immediately indicates a copyedit would be of use. I suggest asking at WP:LOCE for some assistance.
    • "...interfered on Sid's behalf, signalling a disqualification,..." this is really "in-universe" if you like. I know not a lot about pro wrestling but a featured article must appeal to all-comers so you're going to need to either explain or de-jargonise the article.
    • "The PPV received a 0.83 buyrate, equivalent to about 332,000 buys.[4]" - I have got absolutely no idea whatsoever what this means.
      • Copied from above as someone else asked the exact same question: Right, the reference next to it goes down to the particular part, and I've (deliberately) put a quote next to it, which reads: The buyrate reflects the number of homes which purchased a pay-per-view broadcast; 1.0 roughly equates to 400,000 separate homes ordering the event.” This means basically that 1.0 = 400,000 buys. Therefore, 0.83 is about 332,000 buys. This means that 332,000 people bought the pay-per-view when it aired. Hope I've made that clearer for you! :) Davnel03 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In Your House" series is either in italics or not, but be consistent.
    • " This was done at an attempt to ..." as an attempt?
    • "Powerbomb" or "powerbomb" - don't care but be consistent.
  • I'm afraid there's simply too much jargon for the article to be accessible. As I've said, you really need a non-wrestling savvy copyeditor. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is pretty clear this article needs a ton of work doing to it, so I think that its for the best that it is closed early, so I can improve the article. Thanks, Davnel03 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/In_Your_House_1/archive1&oldid=1136097138"