Wikipedia:Peer review/List of WWE pay-per-view events/archive2

List of WWE pay-per-view events[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if this article can become a Featured List. Its been about two years since we last did one on this article and I would like to know how much this page has changed since then.

Thanks, Nascar king 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a start, but the article has several serious problems and some minor ones that make it far from ready for FLC. Here are suggestions for improvement.

The link checker at the top of this review page finds three dead urls in the citations.

Citation 4 is malformed; other citations are incomplete.

It's doubtful that all of the sources meet the WP:RS guidelines. What makes Bella Online reliable, for example?

The caption contains extraordinary claims that require inline citations to reliable sources. The caption says, "WrestleMania is one of the most successful sports entertainment events in the world. Pictured, WrestleMania XXVI which had a record setting 72,219 fans at the University of Phoenix Stadium in 2010." - What reliable source says that WrestleMania is "one of the most successful sports entertainment events in the world"? What reliable source says that the crowd at the University of Phoenix consisted of "a record-setting 72,209 fans"?

The archived peer review of this article has good ideas about how to improve it. Some have been responded to, but others appear to have been ignored, such as the advice to expand the lead to conform to WP:LEAD and to be more careful about the sourcing.

The article needs a careful copyedit to tighten the prose and to eliminate small errors such as the cap H on "high definition" in the last sentence of the History section.

Lead

Link WrestleMania on first occurrence.

"Pay-per-view events are a big part of the revenue stream for WWE." - How big? Is it possible to provide any specific numbers?

History

To help readers unfamiliar with this kind of wrestling or with pay-per-view, it would be a good idea to include a sentence or two explaining those two concepts. What is the WWE? What happens at these events? What kind of wrestling is this? I think you need to make explicit that these events involve professional wrestling and a kind of showmanship that works well on television. I suppose (but don't know for sure) that books have been written about professional wrestling that might have this kind of information.

"It is a commonly held misconception that the first WWE, then known as the World Wrestling..." - The claim that anything is a "commonly held misconception" needs a reliable source. The source provided at the end of the sentence in which this claim appears does not support such a general claim. Be careful that the sources provided actually support the claims in the article.

"scheduled to conflict with NWA's Starrcade" - Abbreviations like NWA need to be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use for readers unfamiliar with the sport.

"the resulting financial blow to Starrcade was in many ways the beginning of the end for Jim Crockett Promotions" - Does the WWE have any remaining competitors, or is it a monopoly?

"Initially, the WWF used the In Your House brand, but beginning in 1996 began using other names... " - Does the WWF own all the brands? How do the brands differ from one another?

Most of the third paragraph and all of the fourth paragraph of this section lack reliable sources. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the inline citation should go at the end of the last sentence of the paragraph.

Active and upcoming events

"Active and upcoming" does not seem to be the same as "current, active". Would "Scheduled events" be a better title for the table?

Tables

The tables look inefficient. For example, the "Notes" columns are very big, but the notes themselves are very small or nonexistent. Is there a better way to present this information?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]