Login
Login

Talk:Survivor Series (2007)/GA1

GA Review

{{al|{{#titleparts:Survivor Series (2007)/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Survivor Series (2007)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It appears well written, comprehensive and well referenced. I have only a few comments which are listed below. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

;Comments

  • I dabbed two wikilinks (correctly, I believe)

:*Charles Robinson

:*Scott Armstrong > Joseph James, Jr.

The following reference links appear to be dead:

  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/matches/3916184/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/thegreatamericanbash/matches/42789821/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/52676102/results
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/5267610/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/43349641/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/matches/52676101/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/unforgiven/matches/48366501/results1/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4335284/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/summerslam07/matches/3900088311/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964113/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/43349641/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4334964/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/433496412/results/
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/exclusives/hbkortonstipulations
  • http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/matches/4335284/results/
  • Also, some of the references have titles that are in all caps. These need to be reduced to sentence capitalization style.

Otherwise, the article is in good shape. I will place it on hold to allow you to address these issues.

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I replaced all the dead links, yes you dabbed those correctly :), and none of the refs are in all caps, though, their official title involves some words to be in caps, which is how the publisher wrote them.--TRUCO 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if the publisher has it in all caps, I believe you should reduce the caps in the references. (Like FAC would make you do it.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose): Clearly written {{GAList/check|aye}} b (MoS): Follows MoS {{GAList/check|aye}}
  3. ::
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  5. :a (references): Well referenced {{GAList/check|aye}} b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable {{GAList/check|aye}} c (OR): No OR {{GAList/check|aye}}
  6. ::
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): Sets the context {{GAList/check|aye}} b (focused): Remains focused on subject {{GAList/check|aye}}
  9. ::
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias: NPOV {{GAList/check|aye}}
  12. ::
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars etc.: {{GAList/check|aye}}
  15. ::
  16. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|aye}}
  18. ::
  19. Overall:
  20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|aye}}
  21. ::

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)