Talk:ECW One Night Stand (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ECW One Night Stand (2006) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	ECW One Night Stand (2006) has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	Professional wrestling Portal ECW One Night Stand (2006) is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Good article nomination speedily failed 2 Good article reassessment 3 Un-needed Pictures 4 GA Review

[edit] Good article nomination speedily failed

The good article nomination of this article has been speedily failed because of a complete lack of reliable sources (see WP:QFC 2.1). This is because all sources in this article link to the website or press releases of WWE, the producers of this event. Because these sources are not independent of the producers of the subject of the article, they are not reliable (see WP:RS). Sandstein 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a misreading of the criteria, in my opinion. Per the WP:RS link "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The WWE is not a personal website, it's the website of the corporation involved that issues press releases on its content. Given that it has some level of control over these press releases, yes, they should be taken with a grain of salt and outside sources should be provided as a counterweight – but that does not necessitate a quickfail. Maybe I'm wrong though. I'm fairly interested, since I'll be reviewing December to Dismember (2006) later today, which is my first review of a sports event article. I'm going to bring it up on the WP:GAN talk page, since I'm usually wrong about these things. Cheers, CP 17:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article reassessment

As several users have stated on the WP:PW talkpage above, I have taken this to GAR to get further opinions. Davnel03 14:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Further opinions have now been archived. There was no consensus to overturn the fail, so the article remains delisted. Geometry guy 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Un-needed Pictures

A lot of the pictures on here don't need to be here I think, pictures of Cena and Foley that aren't even during the event. It just seems stupid and a desperate attempt to get pictures into the article. Surely someone has some photos from the actual event? Mark handscombe 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No. They don't. They can't just be "any old photo" either. And it's not a desperate attempt to get pictures into the article. Davnel03 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not as bad as the article on the 1994 Royal Rumble, which features a picture of Scott Steiner from a few years ago (where he had cut his hair, dyed it blond, and pumped up using steroids). TJ Spyke 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. -- LAX 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)