Talk:New Year's Revolution (2007)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNew Year's Revolution (2007) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

This photo doesnt belong[edit]

the picture of K-Fed, Big Show, and Booker has nothing to do with this event. It works for Cyber Sunday, but no one in that picture was at the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorlizard (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WWEnyr07.jpg[edit]

Image:WWEnyr07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article contains information to the appropriate depth and perhaps too much. The structure of the article requires some development.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Add a citation for the tagline and attendance number.
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    The major aspects are not clearly stated and identified in the first Background paragraph. Use a descriptive lead sentence.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The Background paragraphs are long and confusing. Requires rewriting or reorganizing. Some of the information is not entirely relevant and should be removed. Paragraphs should be split.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The first picture is not directly relevant to the Cena/Umaga feud. Flair picture's caption needs to state its relevance to the event.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Please address the above concerns and notify me for a reevaluation. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reevaluation[edit]

  • fix the spelling in the third paragraph of the intro, and in "which Hary won by escaping the cage".
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 07:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead still has spelling errors. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 09:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the Background paragraphs are a bit long.
    • IMO, the background just needs to be rewritten, not shortened. –Cheers, LAX 08:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hanging upside-down 15 feet in the air". Note that he was hanging from the cage.
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 09:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sunset flips-turned-powerbombs". Provide a link.
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 10:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reassess each use of "yet".
     Done iMatthew 2008 10:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of "headline" accurate in "Donald Trump and Vince McMahon which would go on to headline WrestleMania 23"?
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 08:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency with the capitalization of "The Hardys".
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 09:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other two feuds were closely intertwined." elaborate, clarify.
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 09:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first contest of the night". Incorrect.
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After this spectacle". "spectacle" is subjective.
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 09:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal Rumble" (the event) should not preceded by "the".
    • IMO, "the" should be there. I mean, does "the proceeding month at Royal Rumble..." really make sense. This was also an argument with the Survivor Series (1991) article on whether or not "the" should be included when mentioning Joe Louis Arena. –Cheers, LAX 11:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mix of both with and without "the". Be consistent and use one. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References by nicknames ("Samoan Bulldozer") and descriptions ("Caribbean Superstar") is unnecessary and confusing.
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • People should be not be referred to by given name only. (Mickie, Shawn, Jeff, etc.)
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 16:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the FU" should be changed to "an FU".
     Done. –Cheers, LAX 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "were both confronted by security" should be "both were".
     Done ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsequent uses of a name (person or team) in a paragraph should be consistent in being surname only. Same should be done for established contractions (DX).

--13 of Diamonds (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a ten-minute match, a more detailed description should be added for the Flair/Dykstra match. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. You could have a 5 minute match with lots of major things happening in it, but you could have a 10 minute match which doesn't have many major events in it and could be considered boring, hence why the Flair/Dykstra part is only a few lines. My guess is that there wasn't anything hugely major in it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked over this, and I can't really see any reasons why the GA (2nd opinion requested, it says) shouldn't be passed, so I have done so. Tell me if I've screwed up! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Year's Revolution (2007). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Year's Revolution (2007). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Year%27s_Revolution_(2007)&oldid=1207184738"