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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Starting the review. Hope to have this done by the end of the weekend. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A few minor items have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I do not see any remaining issues with these guidelines. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References format looks fine to me. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Sources are generally reliable, and things are cited appropriately, and supported by their citations. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

   C. It contains no original research:

   Extensively cited throughout to reliable sources for the topic matter. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   All good here. Only hits on Earwig are quotes. I'm just going off an Earwig check as essentially all sources are online and searchable by Earwig (no PDFs). Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   We have a pretty full history of the group here. I don't see anything major missing. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I do not see any issues with this criterion. The prose does not get into too much detail and remains focused on Retribution. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   From a reading of the article, I do not see any issues here. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   I see some vandalism/disruptive editing in the history over the past few months, but not enough to be an issue for GA status. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Non-free use rational needs filling out for the Retribution logo. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

   This has now been done. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Both are relevant and appropriately captioned. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I don't have any remaining comments; I'm going to pass this. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Citation 22 has a typo in the source name.
• Citations 23 and 40 are bare urls. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I have fixed up these three refs. Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 10:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Suggest filling out the non free use rationale at [1].
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• The heel team were first portrayed on television in August 2020, disbanding a year later. Is it fair to say a year later? August to March is only 8 months.
  • Given full dates in lede. Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• This is nitpicking, but consider use of MOS:DATECOMMA where appropriate.
  • Hmm, I'm not sure something like "August 2, 2020 episode of RAW" is suitable to be changed to "August 2, 2020, episode of RAW" as it changes the meaning. Otherwise you'd have the Summer 2020, Olympic Games" or similar, right? Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 13:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• "Full Nelson" can be linked to Nelson hold#Full nelson for benefit of readers like myself who might not know what that means.
  • Linked Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 12:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

As I said above, I don't see any remaining issues and have promoted this nomination. If you wish to return the favor, I have a FAC and a few GANs up. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply