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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose problems are down below. After they are all fixed and the discussion on them has finished, I'll re-read and decide if it passes then. It passes most of the MoS. The only problem is fiction and jargon. The problem is some non-fans will wonder if wrestling is fake, real, etc still. A small explanation, not big, just a simple to the pint one in Early life, should slove this problem. State that there are writers, characters are what they are just characters, wrestler use stage names, etc.--WillC 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Down below--WillC 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Down below, close, so very close IMO.--WillC 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Fixed.--WillC 22:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

   All images seem fine, though more would always be nice.--WillC 06:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will begin the review later today. This may take a while considering when I review I go deeply in depth to make sure it passes the criteria to the letter.--WillC 07:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The "to the letter" comment concerns me. I will assume good faith, though, and trust that this review is not being done out of revenge because the nominator failed one of your GA nominees yesterday. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AGF and all, it's all good in the hood I'm sure :) and hey a really in depth review helps prepare it for Featured Article one day so I welcome all the input you've got. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gary it is all cool. I want to get a reputation for in depth and tough reviews. I was planning to review this even before the TNA Title was failed. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oklahoma City bombing/archive1 to see what type of reviews I like to give. I'm just trying to make sure we have the best articles possible. This review will probably last for a good week or so.--WillC 10:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restart: first review

Beginning re-read

• Info box
  • Enlarge the image to 230px. IMO it will fit the article better, at the sametime it makes the lead look longer.
    • Fixed
  • Remove "Abismo" from the caption, it should be a given.
    • Better safe than sorry as you mention later.
      • Okay.
  • Are the ring names listed in order they were used, alphabetical, or some other means?
    • Chronological order. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I feel it would be best listed as alphabetical.
        • But chronologically is actually helpful, as you go down you follow his career progression. Alphabetically just lists the names yes but nothing else, with a chronological order it adds something more to it. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I can see and agree with that thought, just the only problem is users will not know they are chronological.
  • The same question as above for Trainers instead.
    • THey're in chronological order now. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Like above.
        • And like above I think more is gained by listing them in the order they trained him.
  • Can you give a more precise date for his debut? Plus I would add in the retired parameter. He is dead so technically that is retirement. Probably a given but I'm just now thinking of all the best ways improve this article.
    • SOrry haven't found a more specific date. He was not retired, it's not added to info boxes who died before retirement to make it clear that he was still active at the time of his death.
      • Alright.
• Lead text
  • "Andrés Alejandro Palomeque González (July 1, 1971 – March 22, 2009) was a Mexican Luchador (masked professional wrestler)." The "Mexican Luchador (masked professional wrestler)." part I don't like that much. I'm willing to let it slide since I can't think of a better way to show what a Luchador is, though a thought would be to just remove it entirely and mention what a Luchador is later on in his career section. The lead is just an overview of the article and Luchador is borderline needing explanation, only because of language barrier and the differences in Mexican and American culture. Now I have a question, since there is only one image I'm not sure if he wore a mask throughout his career, but I recall that one of his characters did not wear a mask. So this statement is true yet untrue. Since how can he be a masked wrestler if at one point he did not wear a mask. I say remove the explanation, and in the "Early life" or "Professional wrestling career" sections explain the Luchador part without saying everyone wears masks, just state some.
    • it's not an explanation, it's a translation, I will add "Spanish for". And while he did work unmasked at some point, he was a masked wrestler when he died - we don't refer to people as "high school students" if they weren't high school students at the time of their death. When he died he was an enmascarado.
      • When? Better to just remove it.
        • When what? and why remove it when that's what he was at the time of his death? Do you remove that Eddie Guerrero was a professional wrestler because at some point he wasn't?
          • Add "Spanish for". Do not remove Luchador, remove the explanation.--WillC 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dumb question: "Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA) promotion"; Is that Spanish? Because I've never been able to pronounce that name yet nor CMLL's.
    • Well yes, Mexican company and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Can it be translated?
        • Yes to something along the lines of "Asistance Attendance and Administration" and CMLL translates to "World Wrestling Council". MPJ-DK (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Add them.
            • Done. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "under the alias "Winners"" → "under the alias [The] "Winners"" Listed in the info box so it would be best to state this.
    • It's listed as both with and without the "the" because at times he was billed as "the winners" but most commonly referred to as simply "Winners"
      • That is why I wrote it as [The].
      • Fair enough, I will add.
  • ""Alex Dinamo", "Pequeño Samurai", and "Furor" for short periods." Listed alphabetically or in order of usage?
    • Chronological order used.
      • Better as alphabetical.
        • Again why?
          • Ordered a bit better. I guess I'm a perfectionist at times.--WillC 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Gimnasio Abismo Negro, where individuals were trained to become professional wrestlers." → "Gimnasio Abismo Negro, where individuals were trained to become professional wrestlers; a professional wrestling school." Rare case in which an explanation is needed in the lead. Nearly speaks for itself, but is better to be safe than sorry.
    • A semicolon can only be used if the clauses on both sides can stand on their own. "A professional wrestling school" isn't a complete sentence, so a semicolon doesn't work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I found a better way to write it I think.
        • Yes, that will do fine. I must have not been paying attention when I wrote the semi-colon, though no telling since I suck at gammar anyway.
  • "biggest professional wrestling promotions in Mexico:" → "most prominent professional wrestling promotions in Mexico:" More professional IMO.
    • • Fixed
  • Change "Asistencia Asesoría y Administración" to "AAA" since this is the second mention. Not really important. Thought to at least mention it.
    • Fixed

Rest of the lead is fine. Fix these and there shouldn't be anymore.--WillC 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early life

• Delio Soto and Don Soto are mentioned as his first trainers, but in the info box you have Don Soto's ring name instead. Why? Plus his ring name is not important TBH.
  • He works and trains as "El Noruego", so yes I have Don Soto listed in the lead under the name that he uses in Lucha Libre.
    • Okay
      • I made it even cleared in the infobox.
• A problem I knew would come up and will be a problem in the FAC no doubt so best to fix it here. "Professional wrestling is a non-competitive sport based on simulated fighting with storylines written by creative teams and matches with predetermined results." which I said add is a problem. It should not be removed it should instead be re-written to make more sense and flow. With it just threw in there and seems to be out of place hurts the overall article. I feel the paragraph should instead be like this:

"Andrés Alejandro Palomeque González was born July 1, 1971 in Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico. Palomeque started to get interested in professional wrestling at the age of nine when his father, Juan Francisco Palomeque Torres, took him to his first wrestling event. Later the Palomeque Family moved to Poza Rica where a young Palomeque took up Pentathlon (long jump, high jump, 110 metres hurdles run, shot put, 1500 metres run) in school. He and his brother, César Palomeque, had an interest in Martial Arts and trained together for years. When Palomeque was thirteen years old he began working in a gymnasium where professional wrestlers were trained, initially he paid for the use of the gymnasium by cleaning it after hours. When the family moved back to the Tabasco region he began training under Don Nerio Soto and his brother Delio Soto to become a luchador—the Spanish version of a professional wrestler. Luchadores compete in the Spanish term for professional wrestling lucha libre, which, like American professional wrestling, is a non-competitive sport based on simulated fighting with storylines written by creative teams and matches with predetermined results; the majority of wrestlers wear masks in lucha libre. Don Soto later recollects how he and his family took the young man in and made him part of their family, practically adopting him while he was enrolled in Soto's wrestling school and later as he worked on the local wrestling circuit. Palomeue made his professional wrestling debut in 1987, at the age of 16, under the ring name "Alex Dinamo"."--WillC 00:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specifying that professional wrestling in Mexico is similar to American professional wrestling seems Amerocentric. "American" professional wrestling should not be considered the standard, so the term should just be "professional wrestling". GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well considering this is the english pedia and this is a spanish subject I thought to add it. Plus some may think that only American wrestling is fake. At times I've thought that Japanense and Mexican wrestling were real, so if a fan like me is confused at times, a non-fan probably will be confused.--WillC 01:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British, Canadian, French, Australian, German, South African...? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly I'm not really keen on that version, it makes the logical assumption that Lucha Libre and Pro wrestling are two different things, which it is not. "Delio Soto to become a luchador, or professional wrestler. Professional wrestlers perform in in a non-competitive sport based on simulated fighting with storylines written by creative teams and matches with predetermined results" - Simpler, "country neutral" and does not make a major distinction between wrestling in the US and in Mexico beause it shouldn't, same basics - just a few different traditions, but not enough to imply that it's a different sport. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That will work just fine.--WillC 05:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Professional wrestling career

• • "before making a name change to Pequeño Samurai" → "before changing his character and ring name to that of "Pequeño Samurai"
    • "before changing his character and ring name to "Pequeño Samurai" (less wordy) MPJ-DK (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Japanese should be linked.--WillC 06:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Alrighty. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winners

• • "This time, Winners was defeated by Super Caló and was forced to unmask. This time, Winners was not successful, as he lost to Super Caló and was forced to unmask.[8][12]" I sense redundancy.
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The loss of the mask did not hurt Winners' popularity, on the contrary it intensified as the hansome Palomeque became even more popular with the female fans." Source for this statement? Otherwise remove it.--WillC 08:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hey now you should know by now I got a source for everything on here, added. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abismo Negro

• • "In January 1997, Palomeque's character was changed from that of the quintessential heroic ladies' man known as "Winners", to that of a cheating villain (referred to as a Rudo) known as "Abismo Negro"." Add a ref for the date and character change.
    • Added. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "As part of his Rudo act Palomeque began using the Marinete (a wrestling move known as a Piledriver where he simulates driving the top of his opponents' head into the mat), the Marinete is "banned" Mexican wrestling, which means that it can lead to a disqualification if used during the match." Is it actually banned? Instead of paraenthesis, use dashes. You may have guessed, I like dashes. They seem to work better IMO.
    • Yes I'm aware of your love of dashes ;) and yes it is banned, if a referee sees you perform a piledriver it's an automatic disqualification. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Not long after Los Vipers reunited, Cibernético formed a group called Lucha Libre Latina (LLL), a group intent on taking over AAA that was inspired by World Championship Wrestling's New World Order." Ref for creation and for inspiration. The source for creation is not really needed since you talk about it later on, but does not hurt.
  • "Los Vipers became a subgroup within LLL, and Negro assumed leadership of the group" to "Los Vipers became a subgroup within LLL, and Negro assumed leadership of the party" Seems repetitive the other way.
    • Made it clearer than that even. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 2000, Palomeque participated in a AAA tour of Japan and competed at TripleMania VIII, where Los Vipers were one of the four teams in a Four Corners Elimination match; Los Vipers were defeated by Perro Aguayo, Jr., El Alebrije and Path Finder." It says it was a "four team" elimination match. I see two teams, and only one mentions the members. Please fix this. Now that I think about it after looking at the results, this note is not important. It is about Los Vipers. Sure he was the captain at the time, but their match is noted while Negro was featured in the main event. That is by far more notable and significant to "his" career than a match that did not involve him.
    • I put the main event in instead, I must have been a bit liberal when copying part of the Los Vipers joint history. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 2000 Abismo Negro won the hair of the Panther in Lucha del reves match, which is a match where two masked wrestlers put their hair on the line instead of their mask." Source? Also rewrite it too "In 2000 Abismo Negro defeated the Panther in a Lucha del reves match, which is a contest where two masked wrestlers put their hair on the line instead of their mask." Makes better sense and flows this way. To be honest I put a WTF! face on once I got finished reading it.
    • PFFFF it doen't say "LOL", it's more professional than 90% of the wrestling articles ;) just kidding. And source is easy since it's sourced in the Apuestas table. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "On September 7, 2001 Abismo Negro won another Lucha del reves match and claimed the hair of masked wrestler El Alebrije." Is the hair a thorpy? Do they make a necklace out it? LOL You have to admit that was a great smartass comment. Anyway back to business. "claimed the hair" makes me want to do a faceplam. Not to be rude or anything I have enjoyed reading about Negro and this is an interesting article, but it just does not read professional. Change that statement to "On September 7, 2001, Negro won another Lucha del reves match, this time by defeating El Alebrije." Work with that if you wish.--WillC 13:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In a way it actually is a trophy, an achievement on the level of winning a championship or the mask of an opponent. I'll fix it though. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling

• • "Four weeks later Team AAA successfully defended the X Cup against Team Canada, helped by Abismo Negro and Juventud Guerrera defeating the team of Teddy Hart and Jack Evans." → "Four weeks later Team AAA successfully defended the X Cup against Team Canada, when Abismo Negro and Juventud Guerrera defeated the team of Teddy Hart and Jack Evans." Reads a bit better. You can also change when to "after" if you wish.
    • That's misleadning, Negro & Guerrera did not win it for team AAA by themselves. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Did they successfully defend the X Cup thanks to them?
        • It was a team effort, they scored one of the points that helped them win. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • No, not how the tournament works. It says they sucessfully defended the Cup a month later. Is match the one the cup was defended in?
            • Erm have you not seen X cups? Team AAA had four members they wrestled in a variety of matches earning points, most points win - Negro & Guerrera could not have defended the tournament if they were the only ones to score a point. It's not an "elimination tournament" after all.MPJ-DK (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I have, TNA held one last year. But the article says they defended the Cup. In what match was the Cup defended?--WillC 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • All four members had a match against four members of team "whatever", so two singles and a tag - they won at least one of the singles matches as well.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No no no. I know how the tournament works. Look at the TNA 2008 World X Cup Tournament, I wrote most of that so I understand the rules. I'm speaking of this statement "Four weeks later Team AAA successfully defended the X Cup against Team Canada, helped by Abismo Negro and Juventud Guerrera defeating the team of Teddy Hart and Jack Evans." It suggest that the tournament is over and Team Mexico returned to defend the America's X Cup in a rematch against Team Canada. In what match was the Cup defended?--WillC 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I'm getting tired of the repetitiveness of this part - they did not have ONE match, they faced Team Canada in several matches, each member faced a member of Team Canada, Negro & Guerrera in tag, the other two in singles as I've mentioned a couple of times now, the team win helped Team AAA defend, but it was not enough on it's own to win.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Alright, then explain the other matches involved. So the statement does not confuse future readers like it did with me.--WillC 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'll do that.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Abismo Negro remained undefeated until April 7, 2004 where" Him being undefeated is not that important since it wasn't a big deal at the time I believe nor is it mentioned earlier. You should probably remove it. Also change "where" to "when".--WillC 13:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why would it be mentioned earlier? and why remove it when it's a fact? MPJ-DK (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It is not important.--WillC 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to AAA

• • "Abismo Negro won the hair of Stucka, Jr. again in a Lucha del reves match" → "Abismo Negro defeated Stucka, Jr. in a Lucha del reves match"--WillC 13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Abyss

• • "Black Abyss made sure Negro did not win, furthering the storyline between the two" How?
    • ... erm well because "he made sure Abismo Negro did not win", thought that was pretty clear? MPJ-DK (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • What did he do? This sentence is pretty vague.--WillC 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • He cheated so that Abismo Negro was eliminated from the match.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • • Mention that and go a bit more in depth.--WillC 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Negro with his own trademark move the "Martinete" (Tombstone piledriver)." Remove the Tombstone piledriver part, since now I see it is mentioned earlier.
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "after Abismo Negro's death." → "after Palomeque's death." Person, not character.--WillC 13:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outside the ring

• • You ever thought of calling this section "Personnel life" instead, like others?
    • Well I hadn't until now... and after thinking about it I changed it as well. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Section seems fine. The only thing that may be useful, for various reasons, is the date the AAA game is to be released, if it is known.--WillC 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well "after his death" is relevant part but I may be able to find a date. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Okay.

Death

• • "His body was found in the river in the town of El Rosario, Sinaloa." Lead says near, this says in. Change it to "His body was found in a river near the town of El Rosario, Sinaloa."
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In the morning of March 22," → "On the morning of March 22."
    • Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "7 man Royal Rumble-style match and included a mix of five AAA veterans and two Abismo Negro students." Royal Rumble is a WWE-equse thing. Change to battle royal: "7 man battle royal, which included a mix of five AAA veterans and two Abismo Negro students."--WillC 13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Except it wasn't a battle royal, it was a Royal Rumble-style match where a new competitor entered every couple of minutes. So while it's "WWE-esque" I don't know a different term for a battle royal with timed entrants instead of everyone starting in the ring at the same time. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well as you know, there are different types of battle royals. Some have time intervals, some don't. A gauntlet match is probably the best term for this. TNA has a Gauntlet for the Gold battle royal, which is exactly like a Royal Rumble match, but the only difference is it ends in a pin instead.--WillC 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • So you're okay with using a TNA Term instead of a WWE Term? If either term is okay why not use the one that's most correct??
          • No, I'm saying use Gauntlet match instead. The TNA match was to show the simularity. Add "7 man gauntlet match, which included a mix of five AAA veterans and two Abismo Negro students."--WillC 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Ah I see "Gauntlet" not "Gauntlet for the Gold", I gotcha.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Yeah, good.--WillC 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In wrestling

• • Good.

Championships and accomplishments

• • Good.

Luchas de apuestas record

• • Note his first Lucha del reves match as Furor in the prose at the beginning of the "Professional wrestling career" section.
    • I can note the match but it ws not a "Lucha de reves", Noruego was unmasked and thus bet his hair. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Alright.--WillC 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

• • Good.

Further reading

• • Good.

External links

• • Good.

Since this review has gotten so long and the page is so big, I'm going to FAC it. Remove some of the information and give a link like they do in FACs. Unless you have a problem with it?--WillC 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• erm what? You're going to list it as a Feature Article Candidate? I don't follow here??

• This page is 96 kilobytes long, so I'm going to remove all the text in the table above. Then I'll link to the verison of the article that exist at the time before removal at the top of the article. It is done in FACs when the pages are too long or the FAC is restarted.--WillC 15:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ah I see, I was more than a little confused ;) I got no problems with that at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALright I've addressed it all, can I just comment on one thing? You, like most WP:PW writers have this "collective inferiority complex" going in regards to sources, you tend to go overboard with what should be cited in an effort to make it look extra good. The rules on sources state "for contentious material", where as your review and loads of comments from WP:PW members seem to be "source every little statement no matter what". Now I got sources, I got the info somewhere after all and I've added them but I would like to point out that you may be on the verge of going a tad overboard — and no I don't have a source for that ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sourcing thing is mainly a priority for FA. Since you said something about that I just thoughth to be hard on the article. I was already going to be hard, but the source statement thing is a bitch at FAC to be honest. As you can see from my recent problems with sourcing.--WillC 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very true, I had not thought about that - thank you :) and once this review is concluded it probably won't be long before it's put up for FA.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, well before you do, I would try to find a better ref for all the TripleMania's still. Primary may be the only way to go. I know you've looked, but thought to mention it again for future endevors.--WillC 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AAA's website was redesigned not that long ago and currently does not have a lot of really old results listed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check archive.org, it may have a few archived results from AAA's site.--WillC 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a bad idea

Alright.--WillC 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel it passes the criteria now, so passed.--WillC 07:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]