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

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, I'll be here to fix the problems quickly.--WillC 03:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, just a few nitpicks (mostly prose) remain. I'll post shortly. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My piece of crap computer keeps crashing.

Much improved, obviously. A few points:

• Is Cary Silkin a likely future article? Not very many inbound links to it, but that may just mean editors know it isn't an article yet. If it is a likely future article, okay, but if it isn't, then it obviously should be delinked.
  • I believe I answered this at Talk:ROH World Television Championship/GA1. To explain it more, he is the owner of ROH. He has recently, as far as I know not a big follower of ROH, been appearing on ROH products. Would follow the same as people like Paul Heyman and ECW, Dixie Carter (professional wrestling) and TNA, Vince McMahon and WWE, Eric Bischoff and WCW (though not owner, he did run the promotion and appear on camera), etc. In all likliness, he will be a future article once enough information is found.--WillC 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The ROH Pure Championship was used beforehand from July 17, 2004 to August 12, 2006, before it was unified with the ROH World Championship. I'd try to revise to avoid the repetition of before.
  • Fixed--WillC 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm again unclear if tapings is a singular or plural noun. It seems like it must be plural, but it's used as both in the article. It was not until almost a month later, on March 5, that ROH held the second set of tapings which closed out the tournament. Are the events of one night a "set of tapings" ?
  • Technically yes and no. It is one night of taping multiple episodes. After one episode is filmed, then there is an intermission. Then they tape another, etc. Usually they get two or three done in one night. Common in wrestling. WWE, WCW, TNA, NWA, ECW, ROH, etc have all followed this method of taping multiple shows in one night.

• Edwards wound up defeating Richards "Wound up" are dead wood words. Just, Edwards defeated Richards.
  • Fixed--WillC 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The matches were scheduled to span over six episodes of Ring of Honor Wrestling. Did this change? Obviously, you refer to how things were "scheduled" earlier in the article, when discussing that weather necessitated some changes, but if this didn't change, I'd just say the tournament spanned six episodes.
  • The tournament has yet to complete. It seems like the tournament will instead span 5 episodes. The first four matches took place over 2 episodes. There are only 3 matches left. So it should all add up to 5. Not sure how they'll pull 6 out of it now. Most likely the most recent episode in which they just promoted the next round would count..but idk. I added it in there to allow the reader to come to their own conclusion.--WillC 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna save here to make sure this posts. A little more coming. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the unknown match times really N/A? Aren't they just...unknown?
  • Most use N/A in lists, articles, etc in wrestling for unknown data. Specificly FLs, which I've grown use to, so I just decided to use it here hoping that I'll run across a new review that I miss saying the times of those matches. I could add a note explaining it's usage like in TNA Knockout Tag Team Championship if wanted.--WillC 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think that footnote is a good idea, though the word "encounter" seems a little cheesy. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• At 36 days, Edward's only reign is the longest and shortest in the title's history. He also holds the record for most reigns, with one. He holds the record for most and least successful defenses, with one. I understand that this will become relevant once there's a title change, but maybe comment it out until then? It just looks goofy.
  • I was thinking the same, but decided to remain consistent with the other expanded articles. I'll just go ahead and do that.--WillC 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where exactly is the license spelled out for the usage of the belt images? Great having an image (or two), but we need to be sure it's free. File:ROH World Television Championship 1.jpg claims it is available under a free attribution license – where is this spelled out?
  • See

Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this. You'll understand my skepticism over a message that says "I is who I is" and that it does not currently appear on the website anywhere (anywhere I could find, anyway). Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Use of new ROH belt photos in articles where the creator comments on the use. User Bulletproof is an experienced veteran of wikipedia. He was e-mailed confirmation by the creator that we could use them. Add on the post on all stars championship belt's site and the comment by the owner. Pretty clear we are allowed to. I've already informed Bulletproof the e-mail should be sent to OTRS. I've went through image problems like this before with the TNA titles. The attribution license is the closest license that fits the situation.--WillC 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would really be a good idea for the future. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 10:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two odd external links. [1] and [2] both come up as 403 Forbidden, with a 404 Not Found to boot. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 09:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found the right links. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • I'll pass it, but many of the issues from my first review remain. "ROH bringing back the TV Title to national TV is consistent with ROH's current marketing under Jim Cornette to "re-capture an old-school flavor" to their product." is unexplained beyond that one quote. I mentioned in the first review that the #section link given to Championship (professional wrestling) explains that World Television Championships in other companies have special rules attached to them. If applicable (or perhaps if not), that would probably be good to mention. It wouldn't hurt to get more eyes on this.

   • I explain that isn't the case in the first review. This title does not have any special rules. Also, that was one editor's opinion.--WillC 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   B. MOS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: I have worked through the last few kinks

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Just by the nature of this article, it should be a fairly regular candidate at GAR, because further updates will obviously often be necessary.

   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: I'm still a little perplexed over the "I is who I is" screencap.

   I wouldn't worry about that, just having that message on the site should be enough. Add on the owner actually said it was alright at WT:PW.--WillC 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text: The second image could use some alt text.

   Done, forgot alt for that one sadly.--WillC 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: I'm going to ask for a second opinion. I could go either way. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 11:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay--WillC 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Mainly this is for my protection, as I don't want to pass the article just because I think you deserve it (I do). The article should be passed because the article merits passing. I've also spent a lot of time looking at it over the past three weeks. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, understandable.--WillC 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion

I kave read through the article, the prose seems to be reasonably well written, apart from this in the lead: With the announcement of ROH World Television Championship, ROH re-introduced the television championship back to national television Three instances of "television" in one sentence? I didn't check the refrences as I assume the reviewer has done that, all appear reliable enough, the article seems braod enough, undoubtedly it will be expanding as the tournqamnet develops. Good to go, but do sort out the second sentence in the lead. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove that statement from the lead if wanted. It is becoming bothersome. I can't really expand on that subject. Added a sentence on ranking which I use to use in FLs.--WillC 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]