Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/IWGP Tag Team Championship/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 12 September 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): WillC 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Tag Team Championship/archive1
- Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Tag Team Championship/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
I feel it passes the criteria. Was an FL once before, but was removed. Any comments will be addressed quickly as well. Though FLC is short on reviewers, I will be reviewing a few more than usually to not cause a problem.--WillC 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. I trust that WrestleView is not being used for anything controversial. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – After concluding my review, I waited a while for subsequent reviews to be completed. In addition, I cleaned up a few more prose issues and fixed sorting in a couple places. Meets standards, though I do wish the lead wasn't as long in comparison to the new History section. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Note Tenzan's and Satoshi Kojima's second reign and Junji Hirata's and Shinya Hashimoto's only reign are tied for second
Satoshi Kojima is red-linked when it shouldn't be. --Numyht (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport - Although you need to let Me move stuff into the resolved box or at least respond before you do. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MPJ-DK
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments
--Jpeeling (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Strong opposeA lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Not the article, itself. I can't support until the lead is moved to a "History" section, and the lead is used the proper way, as a summary of the article. iMatthew talk at 14:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better now?--WillC 05:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, you didn't do what I requested. I said move the history to it's own section, and make the lead a summary of the article. I didn't say remove information from it... iMatthew talk at 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't like the idea of a history section, but I went ahead and did one.--WillC 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lead is still too long. The information in the lead needs to be shortened to a summary of the championship, and a summary of it's history, and maybe a summary of it's appearance. The rest of the information up there should be moved to the history section or removed if it's not notable enough to be moved. iMatthew talk at 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I cut the lead down to match other Featured Lists of this kind. I hope and believe that should be enough to change your mind seeing as this has pretty much been the unspoken consensus on format with titles.--WillC 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the second paragraph seems unappealing to readers in terms of length. Split it into two paragraphs or re/move more information. iMatthew talk at 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I cut the lead down to match other Featured Lists of this kind. I hope and believe that should be enough to change your mind seeing as this has pretty much been the unspoken consensus on format with titles.--WillC 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lead is still too long. The information in the lead needs to be shortened to a summary of the championship, and a summary of it's history, and maybe a summary of it's appearance. The rest of the information up there should be moved to the history section or removed if it's not notable enough to be moved. iMatthew talk at 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't like the idea of a history section, but I went ahead and did one.--WillC 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, you didn't do what I requested. I said move the history to it's own section, and make the lead a summary of the article. I didn't say remove information from it... iMatthew talk at 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now?--WillC 00:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You know what? I'll give the article a full review sometime this week. iMatthew talk at 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you will be more exact, we can fix this problem now.--WillC 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You know what? I'll give the article a full review sometime this week. iMatthew talk at 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments:
|
All issues resolved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from iMatthew talk |
---|
*"As a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match." -> "Like most other professional wrestling championships, the title is won via the result of a scripted match."
iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Issues above resolved. Not supporting as I'm still not sure this is an example of Wikipedia's best work. Not opposing because it's better now than it was before. iMatthew talk at 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.