Jump to content

Talk:Rated-RKO

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRated-RKO 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.
Good topic starRated-RKO is the main article in the Rated-RKO series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 21, 2006Articles for deletionKept
December 14, 2006Articles for deletionKept
January 17, 2010Good article nomineeListed
February 5, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rated-RKO/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royalbroil 00:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Several changes below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Some verification issues below. Sources are quite reliable (most are the official WWE website)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Well done, no concerns
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Well done
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Very stable
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images look good, have correct licensing and captions. Could create a category on Commons (optional).
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]
  • The lead should say if they're heel, face, or neither
  • "The team consisted of Edge, Randy Orton, and Lita, their valet. The name "Rated-RKO" is a portmanteau of Edge's nickname, the "Rated-R Superstar,"[1] and Orton's initials/finishing maneuver, RKO". I don't see how either reference supports the content in the sentence. Please explain.
    • Would you rather I remove the refs?
      • What I was saying is that I couldn't see how any of the content in the sentence is referenced. I looked over it again, and I see that you were trying to prove the wrestlers with their nicknames. You did fine with Orton, but you didn't prove very well with the Edge. His bio on the same official WWF website ties the two together. So please change his link to this link. Do you have a reliable source that says that Rated-RKO is a portmanteau? It's very easy to see with your eye, but I'd feel more comfortable with some type of verification.
  • Beside these issues, the lead is an excellent summary of the article.
    • Thank you. :)
  • "Edge cited Orton's lack of success after being kicked out of Evolution, Orton's former group, by Triple H and Batista, which he claimed stalled Orton's career, as well as the antics of DX taking up TV time that he felt should rightfully go to the younger stars as reasons Orton should join him." is too complicated - I don't understand. Can you break it into 2 sentences?
    • I tried, but what I come up with doesn't make sense. Do you have a suggestion?
      • What do you think about: "When asked Edge was asked why Orton should join him as a tag team partner, Edge cited Orton's lack of success after being kicked out of Evolution (Orton's former group), as well as the antics of DX taking up TV time that he felt should rightfully go to the younger stars."
  • "The real reason for the sudden switch was later revealed to be Piper's diagnosis of lymphoma forcing him out of action." None of the references support this sentence, and it's controversial.
    • Added ref.
  • "On a subsequent episode of Raw, Edge and Orton beat Ric Flair bloody, continuing to beat him after dragging him to the ring after DX had already left the build, friends of the fallen Flair." This sentence doesn't make sense gramattically, mainly everything starting with "build"
    • I think I got it.
      • That's better, but I have a suggestion that might be even better. How about "On a later episode of Raw, Edge and Orton beat Ric Flair until he was bloody and continued to beat him after dragging him to the ring after DX had already left the building." Can you think of any way to write it with only one "after"? It would get picked apart at FA.
  • "cause Orton to come out on the short end" - "short end" is too informal
    • I think I got it.
  • "Edge then moved to the SmackDown brand on the May 11 episode of said television broadcast after cashing in the Money in the Bank briefcase (which he had won from Mr. Kennedy, who had won said match at WrestleMania 23, on the same episode of Raw)[28] to win the World Heavyweight Championship from then-champion The Undertaker." This sentence is too long. The word "said" is used wrong twice in this sentence - it's very awkward.
  • At first glance, I thought the article was too short. But after reading the article, it looks complete since the tag team didn't last very long.
  • That's all of the concerns that I found. I've put the nomination on hold pending changes. I plan to read the article another time after you make the changes, so don't be surprised if I find a few more later. Royalbroil 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the review. I hope I addressed your concerns, if not, please let me know, and I'll take care of them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome. I always try to review at least one article for each GAN that I do and I hope that you do too. I like to pick one ahead of mine. Just a few comments back for you to do before I read the whole article again. It's looking better already. Everything that I didn't comment on look resolved. Royalbroil 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
second read review

I am satisfied that the article meets the Good Article criteria, so I have listed it as a Good Article! Congratulations, and thank you for all of the time that you spent developing it to this point. I have few suggestions for improvement. The websites that you used to cite the article are hard for a non-expert reader to understand and they aren't clear about details to this non-expert. Royalbroil 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the review. Just noticed this was passed. I worked on the article a little before it was placed up at GAN. I decided to just let ThinkBlue work on the review since she did more than I, but I wanted to say thanks.--WillC 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I know how much work gets put into a Good Article - I have one in the queue. I like to review one older than mine - which is always easy to find. There wouldn't be a backlog if we all did one ahead of ours. Royalbroil 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Rated-RKO

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rated-RKO's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OWOW":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning?

[edit]

is it worth mentioning that both former members are starting to develop a rivalry?--67.148.62.18 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just see how this plays out. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Rated-RKO

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rated-RKO's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wwebio":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rated RKO.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Rated RKO.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 14 January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Rated-RKO

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rated-RKO's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Raw02102020":

Reference named "Raw01272020":

Reference named "WM36Part2":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rated-RKO&oldid=1209137725"