Money Inc. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Article too short? I think this article is way too short, should be deleted
This page was far too short for such a great team. I added a history.
The team's full name was Money Incorporated and that's what they were called most of the time back in 1992-1993. That should be the article's name, with Money Inc, Money Inc., Money, Inc, and Money, Inc. as redirects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.218.242 ( talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about the WP:COMMONNAME for this article: should it be Money Inc. or Money Incorporated. As I start the Good Article review, please start a discussion at WikiProject Professional wrestling to determine consensus for the article's name. It has been the subject of some reverts on the article. Royal broil 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewed against the GA criteria by Royal broil
1) It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
2) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) contains no original research.
3) It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
4) It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5) It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
6) It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I am satisfied that all criteria for GA have been met. Congratulations! I have no additional suggestions to improve the article to FA status. The article does a great job of explaining the events without speaking within the wrestling universe. Royal broil 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Money Inc. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Article too short? I think this article is way too short, should be deleted
This page was far too short for such a great team. I added a history.
The team's full name was Money Incorporated and that's what they were called most of the time back in 1992-1993. That should be the article's name, with Money Inc, Money Inc., Money, Inc, and Money, Inc. as redirects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.218.242 ( talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering about the WP:COMMONNAME for this article: should it be Money Inc. or Money Incorporated. As I start the Good Article review, please start a discussion at WikiProject Professional wrestling to determine consensus for the article's name. It has been the subject of some reverts on the article. Royal broil 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewed against the GA criteria by Royal broil
1) It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
2) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) contains no original research.
3) It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
4) It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5) It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
6) It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
I am satisfied that all criteria for GA have been met. Congratulations! I have no additional suggestions to improve the article to FA status. The article does a great job of explaining the events without speaking within the wrestling universe. Royal broil 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)