# Talk:King of the Ring (1994)

Image:Kor1994.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged into the main King of the Ring article.
It does not make sense that 1994 and 1995 have their own detailed articles when all the other 15 years that the tournament was held are simply contained within the main.
Either there should be 17 different articles, or one. The current format is not copasetic.
Yagobo79 12:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As it has already been explained to you mutliple times, WP:PW is working on turning them (and all PPV's) into seperate articles. We have limited manpower though and can't do them all at once. TJ Spyke 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.  As a non-wrestling fan (speaking only of the last 30 years), it seems to be complete, thorough and most importantly encyclopedic.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
The grammar is better than much of WP, but you asked for a critique so I was a bit hard on you.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Should I understand how people qualified for the elimination bouts?
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I find it hard to believe you could not have followed the WP:PR advice to get some images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Please address my concerns below over the next seven days. Notify me on my talk page if you are ready for reevaluation earlier.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry to see the WP:PR was so short. In addition, I disagree with it because there are two alternatives for a lead. Either completely uunreferenced with every important fact coming from a referenced fact in the main body or fully referenced with at least one ref per paragraph. Either is fine. I am also disappointed in the auto generated peer review because my concern with the WP:LEAD is that it is short for this lengthy an article and the automated script usually. Do you feel a reader has a basic understanding of the entire article? I think a lengthier lead would be appropriate and another paragraph might be useful. The first paragraph could explain qualification/eligibility. Something like the first sentence of the main body could be added/moved there. A quick paragraph summarizing matches could follow. Adding a bit more to the current second paragraph would not hurt. A third paragraph could provide about a three sentence summary of the aftermath and significance of the event.
The auto peer review did mention images.  Do any of the wrestler's mentioned in the article have images that might be appropriate for inclusion?
The following is ungrammmatical: "Two days later, on the May 16, 1994 edition of Monday Night RAW featured a qualifying match between Bam Bam Bigelow and Thurman "Sparky" Plugg." Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
After the word RAW there should be a comma immediately followed by a noun serving as a subject.
That works too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The following is ungrammatical for inconsistent tense: The remaining qualifying matches developed storylines in addition to building up to the tournament. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Reconstruct with developed and building having the same tense.
"Tatanka won the match, and the spot in the tournament" should not have an interceding comma. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Diesel was in the midst of a major push, having beaten Razor Ramon for the WWF Intercontinental Championship in April 1994" is ungrammatical because the the subject is remote from its modifier. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Move the post comma stuff to the beginning of the sentence so that it modifies Diesel instead of push.
"He claimed that this was Piper himself, and he made the fan kiss Lawler's feet." Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Insert fan or impersonator after this.
"As Bigelow climbed the ropes, however" would be more grammatical IMO starting with however, so that the modifier could precede its subject. Done I tend to move "however" to the middle of the sentence because many people think it is incorrect to begin a sentence with "however". People are divided on the issue, so I don't mind moving it to the start. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
O.K., I think I may be old school or new school or something in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"to block Schyster's charge before the bell and powerslam him" would have better parallel structure with "to" before powerslam or with a reconstructed sentence the easiest being just adding then before powerslam.  In fact, maybe adding "to then" before powerslam might be best. Try that. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"The Kid kayfabe injured his knee" sounds ungrammatical, but I am not sure about wrestling slang in proper grammatical construction.  kayfabe seems to be serving as an adverb here and I don't think it is one.  However slang sometimes works like that.
Maybe it could be changed to have "(kayfabe)" listed at the end of the sentence? We (as in WP:PW) have been told we need to make it clear when something like an injury is fake (i.e. kayfabe) and when it's real. TJ Spyke 00:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed it so that "kayfabe" is used as an adjective--"The Kid sustained a kayfabe injury to his knee." Is this better?
Change "allowing Diesel to perform" to "which allowed Diesel to perform". Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"The two brawled outside the ring, after which I.R.S. gained the advantage inside the ring by applying a chinlock while using the ropes for leverage." may or may not be grammatical. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
However, if it is grammatical I would prefer: "The two brawled outside the ring. Afterwards, while using the ropes for leverage, I.R.S. gained the advantage inside the ring by applying a chinlock."
If it is ungrammatical I would prefer "While using the ropes for leverage, the two brawled outside the ring. Afterwards, I.R.S. gained the advantage inside the ring by applying a chinlock."
tope rope s/b top rope. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Lawler was frequently distracted by the fan in Lawler's corner. s/b Lawler was frequently distracted by the fan who was seated/sitting/stationed/positioned in Lawler's corner. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"while placing his feet on the ropes for leverage" needs to be adjacent to the subject it modifies which is likely He and not Piper in this case. Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
CONTINUED OBJECTION"He attacked Piper with a foreign object and placed his feet on the ropes for leverage while he tried to pin Piper" remains awkward.  I assume you can't do both attack and place your feet on the ropes at the same time.  The phrase while he tried to pin Piper only has one antecedent which is he, so the sentence is not yet clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"allowing Piper to perform a back suplex and get the victory" would be more grammatical as "which allowed Piper to perform a back suplex and get the victory" Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what a "dark match" is.  Link it or explain it.
It is linked, twice (including the first time it appears in the article). The term only shows up 3 times, and 2 of those are linked to the article that explains what it means. TJ Spyke 00:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I read through it the first two times and third time when it wasn't linked I didn't remember, but it seemed like a term I should know.  Good job on the earlier links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  01:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Repeating conjunctions "and Lawler returned to doing commentary and feuding with Bret Hart." are awkward.  Change the second to as well as. .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)  Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Repeating prepositions almost as bad "Fatu pinned Crush after a savate kick, after outside distraction from Lex Luger" How about "Fatu pinned Crush after a savate kick, which followed an outside distraction from Lex Luger." Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Multiple sequential prepositions here could be reworked: "Crush (replacing the originally announced Jimmy Del Ray) and Tatanka wrestled to a Double Count-Out on WWF Monday Night RAW on May 30, 1994 in a King of the Ring Qualifying Match." Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
How about, "In a May 30, 1994 King of the Ring Qualifying Match, Crush (replacing the originally announced Jimmy Del Ray) and Tatanka wrestled to a Double Count-Out on WWF Monday Night RAW." or "On a May 30, 1994 WWF Monday Night RAW episode, Crush (replacing the originally announced Jimmy Del Ray) and Tatanka wrestled to a Double Count-Out, in a King of the Ring Qualifying Match."
"The two would wrestle again" s/b "The two wrestled again" Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Two free use images have been added to the article. Very few free use pictures exist on Wikipedia for the wrestlers in the articles, and the ones that do exist are usually taken years later when the wrestlers look quite different. I think the next best after Piper is Neidhart, who looks the same in his picture as he did at the time. There is also a picture of Bret Hart in 1994 holding the championship belt, which would be great except for the fact that it was nominated for speedy deletion today. I have addressed the grammatical issues and I will work on expanding the lead paragraph. Thanks for the comments so far, and thanks for being tough about the grammar. I really do appreciate it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any images for which reasonable fair use claims might be made to augment this article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, what is wrong with the Owen Hart image for this article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the Owen Hart picture and moved the Jim Neidhart picture to the "Aftermath" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, the beefed up lead is sort of confusing as a stand alone.  Hart did not beat three people at this event.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes it confusing? If you could point me in the right direction, it would help a lot. And Owen Hart did beat three at the event. He beat Doink to qualify in May, and then he beat Tatanka, the 1-2-3 Kid and Razor Ramon on the pay-per-view. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So he beat them all on a single day in real life?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. All the matches in the "Results" section take place on the date of the PPV. TJ Spyke 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.  As a non-wrestling fan (speaking only of the last 30 years), it seems to be complete, thorough and most importantly encyclopedic.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

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

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

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

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Good work responding to my suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It passed with ZERO sources in the lead? *scratches head* that's not right. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
MPJ-DK, you may want to see this. D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on King of the Ring (1994). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wrestlecrap.com/classic27.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202130823/http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/results/raw/_1994/ to http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/results/raw/_1994/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wrestlecrap.com/classic27.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)