Talk:UFC 120

Official fight card- use of bolding

Why does this article break precedent and bold all the fights before they have happened? (this seems to have been set by an overly ambitious IP) This is usually only done once the Official fight card becomes Results.(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

To be honest, I don't think it matters whether the bolding is done now or later. The most important thing is that they are reversed (e.g. prelims at the top, main on the bottom), as it makes no sense to suddenly change it the day of the event. The reasoning behind my revert was that I hadn't looked at what was going on. I saw the history and saw that about 800b of data had been removed, which considering the amount of IP/new user edits, seemed worthwhile. I'm fine leaving the bolding off for now. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't really noticed that the card was reversed, I don't really mind that as long as its in a logical order, but it is good to keep it consistent.(Justinsane15 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

Change the others then. I don't see why we should have a certain time period when they're suddenly reversed. Should be whenever the card is fully announced. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you like..a silly issue imo.(Justinsane15 (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:UFC 120/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 16:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll review. Give me a day or so to put some substantive comments up... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten this one; work has been unexpectedly hectic over the last couple of days so it will be Thursday by the time I get to it. Apologies for this delay... Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Until the reviewer gets back I have some suggestions.

1. The sections need adjusting. For example "Card criticism" and "Attendance and gate figures" are not really about the background of the event (which usually discusses what lead up to the event).
2. In skimming the article I don't see any prose about the fights themselves. A brief synopsis and/or paragraph about each fight stating why it was notable would be good.
3. The results/stats section would be more visually appealing, and more readable, if it used the table format that is slowly being introduced such as in UFC 148.
4. The entrance music section should contain at least a one sentence introduction and the citation placed at the end of the sentence (as opposed to hanging on after the table).

    Done. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

5. Flags in the article should conform with MOS:FLAG (none in the infobox) and the recently ended RFC at WP:MMA.

    Done. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

6. Bonus awards sentence is confusing to me, let alone a non-MMA fan. Add more prose to explain who got how much for their award.

That's all I have for now. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

There has been no action by the reviewer since late November, no edits here at all for over four weeks, and the article appears to have been gutted four days ago. As this nomination has been clearly abandoned, I think this review should be concluded unless action is taken right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I had been waiting for a response to the comments made above by TrayGeek but nothing seems to have been forthcoming. I will wait another day or two to see if anyone has anything else to add and will the close the nomination. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Still minimal progress after well over a month at GAN, so failing this. Wizardman 19:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)