Wikipedia:Featured article review/December to Dismember (2006)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 14:09, 19 August 2008 [1].

December to Dismember (2006)

Review commentary

Major editors and Wikiproject have been notified by IMatthew.--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article here, not because I want to, but because I feel it is what's right. The article was promoted a while before the criteria for a Featured Article became more challenging. The article does not go into the storylines the best that it could, and there are other flaws as well. My main reason for nominating this is that judging by this and this, the article needs major improving to meet the criteria. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to list this correctly and to notify relevant parties and projects. ~~This page is not listed at FAR.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, I withdraw this nomination. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have the sourcing problems seen in some other wrestling articles, but while it's here, it could use a tune-up and prose review. Errors are easily spotted, including at least:

Less than twenty-four hours ... (WP:MOSNUM issues)
- Changed to "24" - D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In early-2008, in ... (faulty hyphens)
- Shouldn't there be a hyphen then, or should it be – ? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - None at all. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed hyphen. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meltzer, Dave (2007-01-22), ... (unformatted dates in citations)
- I don't see the need to change it, otherwise it becomes inconsistent with the other date formatting used for the references in the article. Or does that particular one need to be Wikilinked? D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikilinked, yes. That allows a users' preferences to auto-change it when the view the page. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Campbell, CA): 1-12 (WP:DASH errors)
- Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle." (WP:PUNC issues)
- Done (I think) D.M.N. (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... December 5, 2006). ECW December to Dismember - REVIEWED. The (MOS:CAPS#All caps)
- Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Those were samples only; has someone checked the entire article for MoS cleanup? User:Epbr123 is good at cleaning up MoS issues, but first you might check the text yourself to be sure similar issues are clean throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. I'll probably ask someone to look through the prose tomorrow. I don't think there are any other MoS violations in the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - MOS cleanup carried out by Epbr123 (talk · contribs) - D.M.N. (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cr 1a: distinctly substandard throughout.
- "which would have meant there would be"—clumsy, and exposed in the lead.
  - Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's take one sentence, close to the top. "Outside of the weekly ECW broadcast, the pay-per-view received very little buildup on either Raw or SmackDown!, with WWE concentrating more on the Survivor Series pay-per-view that aired one week earlier." The second word is redundant. "Very" actually has the opposite effect—get rid of it. The old "with + noun + -ing" construction, which is very poor. That had aired, I think.
  - Done. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "an entire month and a half before the event occurred."—"entire" is excessive. Can six words be conflated into just two, "six week"?
  - Yeah, guess it can. Changed it to six weeks. D.M.N. (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent reconstruction required. TONY (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: I am going on vacation this Saturday for two weeks until August 3rd, meaning I will have no internet access and will therefore be unable to deal with any comments that come towards this FAR on Saturday or after. D.M.N. (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave this in the FAR section until the beginning of August. Marskell (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has undergone a serious copy-edit, please see [2] - D.M.N. (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get an explanation of the concerns regarding comprehensiveness and referencing? I'm unsure of what (if anything) remains to be done. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think (although you'll probably have to ask iMatthew this) the concern was about the writing style, which has since been changed. I see no concerns about referencing though. D.M.N. (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be due to refs 49, 48, 36, and 25.--S_RX 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced ref #25. I've changed ref #36. Ref's #48 + #49 may be classed as unreliable, but they are used to adequatly source what general fans felt of the PPV as a whole, and source the statement "Critics and fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view." adequatly. D.M.N. (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This is the copy-edit has gone through now. D.M.N. (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, concerns seem to have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.