Talk:Royal Rumble (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Royal Rumble (2005) 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
Date Process Result
January 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
May 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Professional wrestling (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Royal Rumble (2005) is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Question[edit]

In both the 1991 and 1994 Royal Rumbles, an entrant for one reason or another didn't make it to the ring. This should be mentioned in the trivia section.

Qualifying Matches[edit]

Normally, aren't the qualification matches for the royal rumble listed somewhere, or were there none in 2005? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Dagon (talkcontribs)

There usually aren't qualifying matches, that is actually someone rare. I don't think there were any in 2005. TJ Spyke 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Rare nowadays, probably. Because in 2004 there were either 9 or 11 ones listed....but thanks...--Lord Dagon (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Boatched ending[edit]

Just listened to a podcast with Batista where he says the ending was botched and that him and Cena being eliminated was not meant to happen[1]. Should this be added to the results ? Bencey (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. TJ Spyke 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The info can be added to the notes section but i believe that if should be in the matches section> Bencey (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
In the matches section? No. If it's added at all, it would have to say something like "Batista claimed". TJ Spyke 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Additions to peer review[edit]

The newsletter indicated that this article was up for peer review, but I must have missed it because the newsletter was delayed for a long while. Anyway, I have a couple of suggestions for improving the article:

  • Obviously, merge the trivia into the article or delete the non-notable bits per WP:Trivia.
  • In the lead, the first sentence reads "It took place on January 30, 2005 at the Save Mart Center in Fresno, California,[1][2] which is why it used the West Side Story theme." Maybe it is just me, but that doesn't explain why their was the West Side Story theme. A better explanation would be nice.

Other than that, looks good. Nikki311 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume the West Side Story part is because Fresno is on the west coast (you would have to ask the person who orinally wrote that to make sure though). TJ Spyke 01:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

pre-GA review[edit]

Lead[edit]

  1. which is why it used the West Side Story theme - explain, source, or remove.
    LAX 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. John "Bradshaw" Layfield vs. Kurt Angle and The Big Show is saying it's a handicap match. it should be John "Bradshaw" Layfield vs. Kurt Angle vs. The Big Show
    LAX 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Other On-Screen Talent[edit]

  1. There should not be any red-links, remove the ones in this table.
    LAX 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Background[edit]

  1. The main feud heading into Royal Rumble shouldn't it be "the Royal Rumble"
    LAX 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Triple H won the Elimination Chamber match for the vacated title at New Year's Revolution, three weeks before Royal Rumble, with the illegal help of Batista and Ric Flair, the other members of Evolution. can be cut into two sentences.
    LAX 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. RAW, you know the story, italics and lowercase "aw"
    LAX 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. That comes up again.
    Uh? –LAX 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was referring to number three, saying it comes up twice in the background. iMatthew 2008 10:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath[edit]

  1. The RAW thing again.
    LAX 11:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Saying that he remained a main event is more like a personal opinion.
    Removed. –LAX 12:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Can Road to WrestleMania Tournament be wiki-linked.
    Nope. The article was deleted. –LAX 11:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Barbed-Wire Steel Cage needs to be wiki-linked.
    LAX 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Randy Orton, and Kurt Angle both moved away from the title picture after Royal Rumble. needs a ref.
    Why? It's evident that they moved away from it and started their own feuds. –LAX 12:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    It can just be evident, it needs to be proven. iMatthew 2008 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Is that any better? –LAX 12:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. iMatthew 2008 12:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Event[edit]

  1. Raw is not italicized in the last paragraph.
    Raw isn't italicized at all in the event. –LAX 12:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. The event section looks fine. I couldn't find any grammar/spelling errors or problems with sentences. It is referenced and all. It's good.

Notes[edit]

  1. The section needs to be removed. Anything in it should be included in the report, or deleted.
    LAX 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Once everything is done, give your one week notice to WP:PW. iMatthew 2008 11:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:I understand that the feud between Orton and Triple H began in August, but it would be a good idea to expand the feud a bit. In the Background section, WWE title feud, "beat down everyone", needs to be re-written a little. What does this mean ---> "Layfield then set up Angle to anger The Big Show, and Angle did the same to Layfield in response"? I know who "Long" is, but how 'bout the person that reads this article. This ---> "for their beat down", needs to be explained well. Who did Angle hit with the TV monitor during the match? There tends to be a lot of "The" in the article, example: JBL executed the Clothesline from Hell, when it should say, JBL executed a Clothesline from Hell. Again, for the match between Orton and Triple H, I know who Evolution is, but not every reader might know. In the Aftermath, the JBL name situation needs to be fixed, because it starts with Layfield, then John "Bradshaw" Layfield and then JBL.|I understand that the feud between Orton and Triple H began in August, but it would be a good idea to expand the feud a bit. In the Background section, WWE title feud, "beat down everyone", needs to be re-written a little. What does this mean ---> "Layfield then set up Angle to anger The Big Show, and Angle did the same to Layfield in response"? I know who "Long" is, but how 'bout the person that reads this article. This ---> "for their beat down", needs to be explained well. Who did Angle hit with the TV monitor during the match? There tends to be a lot of "The" in the article, example: JBL executed the Clothesline from Hell, when it should say, JBL executed a Clothesline from Hell. Again, for the match between Orton and Triple H, I know who Evolution is, but not every reader might know. In the Aftermath, the JBL name situation needs to be fixed, because it starts with Layfield, then John "Bradshaw" Layfield and then JBL.|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:Is there a source for Vince McMahon's injury, when he came to the Rumble match? A source is needed for JBL's win at No Way Out.|Is there a source for Vince McMahon's injury, when he came to the Rumble match? A source is needed for JBL's win at No Way Out.|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:In the Triple Threat match for the Event, "dominated", sounds like POV and might have to be re-written.|In the Triple Threat match for the Event, "dominated", sounds like POV and might have to be re-written.|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.|If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to LAX for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
An extra two things. I personally would recommend expanding the Aftermath a little, and probably add Undertaker/Heidenreich feud into the Background section IIRC, that feud started several months earlier and had a good lead-up. D.M.N. (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)