Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Royalbroil 00:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Several changes below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some verification issues below. Sources are quite reliable (most are the official WWE website)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Well done, no concerns

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Well done

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images look good, have correct licensing and captions. Could create a category on Commons (optional).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• The lead should say if they're heel, face, or neither
  • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The team consisted of Edge, Randy Orton, and Lita, their valet. The name "Rated-RKO" is a portmanteau of Edge's nickname, the "Rated-R Superstar,"[1] and Orton's initials/finishing maneuver, RKO". I don't see how either reference supports the content in the sentence. Please explain.
  • Would you rather I remove the refs?
    • What I was saying is that I couldn't see how any of the content in the sentence is referenced. I looked over it again, and I see that you were trying to prove the wrestlers with their nicknames. You did fine with Orton, but you didn't prove very well with the Edge. His bio on the same official WWF website ties the two together. So please change his link to this link. Do you have a reliable source that says that Rated-RKO is a portmanteau? It's very easy to see with your eye, but I'd feel more comfortable with some type of verification.
      • I replaced the ref. To be honest, that was there before I started work on the article. I kept it cause I thought it sounded "smart". I don't think there's a source, but there more I read it, the more it seems like original research and point-of-view. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was concerned it was original research. Please find a source that says something about the combination of their names or something to this effect. It doesn't need to use the exact word "Portmanteau". I notice that you added a citation to "Edge and Orton, calling themselves "Rated-RKO". Would you paste in the few words that you used to source this information? I just don't see it. Royalbroil 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added quote. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Beside these issues, the lead is an excellent summary of the article.
  • Thank you. :)
• "Edge cited Orton's lack of success after being kicked out of Evolution, Orton's former group, by Triple H and Batista, which he claimed stalled Orton's career, as well as the antics of DX taking up TV time that he felt should rightfully go to the younger stars as reasons Orton should join him." is too complicated - I don't understand. Can you break it into 2 sentences?
  • I tried, but what I come up with doesn't make sense. Do you have a suggestion?
    • What do you think about: "When asked Edge was asked why Orton should join him as a tag team partner, Edge cited Orton's lack of success after being kicked out of Evolution (Orton's former group), as well as the antics of DX taking up TV time that he felt should rightfully go to the younger stars."
      • Okay, I believe I got this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The real reason for the sudden switch was later revealed to be Piper's diagnosis of lymphoma forcing him out of action." None of the references support this sentence, and it's controversial.
  • Added ref.
• "On a subsequent episode of Raw, Edge and Orton beat Ric Flair bloody, continuing to beat him after dragging him to the ring after DX had already left the build, friends of the fallen Flair." This sentence doesn't make sense gramattically, mainly everything starting with "build"
  • I think I got it.
    • That's better, but I have a suggestion that might be even better. How about "On a later episode of Raw, Edge and Orton beat Ric Flair until he was bloody and continued to beat him after dragging him to the ring after DX had already left the building." Can you think of any way to write it with only one "after"? It would get picked apart at FA.
      • I added this ---> "The night after Survivor Series, Edge and Orton beat Ric Flair until he was bloody and continued to beat him after dragging him to the ring, in knowing that DX had already left the building", is that okay? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made a minor change to the article by removing "in". Looks much better! Royalbroil 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "cause Orton to come out on the short end" - "short end" is too informal
  • I think I got it.
• "Edge then moved to the SmackDown brand on the May 11 episode of said television broadcast after cashing in the Money in the Bank briefcase (which he had won from Mr. Kennedy, who had won said match at WrestleMania 23, on the same episode of Raw)[28] to win the World Heavyweight Championship from then-champion The Undertaker." This sentence is too long. The word "said" is used wrong twice in this sentence - it's very awkward.
  • Again, I think I got it, if not, please let me know.
    • I took an attempt, please make sure this makes sense.
      • Yeah, your suggestion makes sense. Thank you. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• At first glance, I thought the article was too short. But after reading the article, it looks complete since the tag team didn't last very long.
• That's all of the concerns that I found. I've put the nomination on hold pending changes. I plan to read the article another time after you make the changes, so don't be surprised if I find a few more later. Royalbroil 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. I hope I addressed your concerns, if not, please let me know, and I'll take care of them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome. I always try to review at least one article for each GAN that I do and I hope that you do too. I like to pick one ahead of mine. Just a few comments back for you to do before I read the whole article again. It's looking better already. Everything that I didn't comment on look resolved. Royalbroil 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I've meaning to review a couple of articles, which I will get to. I got your concerns/comments, please let me know what you think about it. Again, thanks for taking your time on this review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

second read review

• "Portmanteau" isn't the right word - it means 2 words combined to make one word - like spork.
  • What do you suggest? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about rewriting the sentence and keep it much less specific and let the reader figure it out? The Edge's nickname is the "Rated-R Superstar" and Orton's initials/finishing maneuver is "RKO". I think this is the last point left to address in the GA review! Sorry for the slow response - I didn't have time to do anymore than check my watchlist yesterday. Royalbroil 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I removed "portmanteau" from the sentence. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "When Edge asked Orton why he should join him as a tag team partner" - do you mean "When Orton asked Edge..."?
  • No, actually, Orton never asked, just told Edge to "get to the point", as Edge was insulting him. [1] --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please cite the Finishing maneuvers
  • Added refs. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise it looks good! Royalbroil 04:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think, I think, I got your concerns... I think. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied that the article meets the Good Article criteria, so I have listed it as a Good Article! Congratulations, and thank you for all of the time that you spent developing it to this point. I have few suggestions for improvement. The websites that you used to cite the article are hard for a non-expert reader to understand and they aren't clear about details to this non-expert. Royalbroil 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the review. Just noticed this was passed. I worked on the article a little before it was placed up at GAN. I decided to just let ThinkBlue work on the review since she did more than I, but I wanted to say thanks.--WillC 07:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I know how much work gets put into a Good Article - I have one in the queue. I like to review one older than mine - which is always easy to find. There wouldn't be a backlog if we all did one ahead of ours. Royalbroil 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]