GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be happy to review this GA Candidate article. H1nkles (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose is an issue that will need to be addressed if the article is going to promote to FA one day.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    The sourcing is reliable but the article relies heavily on one website.
    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:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Descriptions of some of the moves seem to be tediously detailed though this appears to comply with Pro Wrestling community consensus.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Good article, with work it could be more. H1nkles (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding Lead

  • The lead is too detailed. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the article. Language should be more general. By nature the information in the lead will be repeated in the article but the purpose of the lead is to paint an overarching picture of the article. While having not read the entire article I am assuming that the outcomes of each match are detailed in the article. Please consider removing the outcomes of the events from the lead. I am new to reading professional wrestling articles and so if it is a consensus to list competitors and event outcomes in the lead then I will defer to community consensus but under protest as I feel as though it is too specific for the lead. Please clarify this issue.
  • Per the project's MoS the lead is to not go too much into detail but just tell who won. So far alot of things are being changed in the lead since I did not know how bad it was. I'm following my recently promoted FA, Lockdown (2008), to fix the article.--WillC 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You indicate that for the first time the World championship title was retained after the King of the Mountain match two times in the lead. Please remove one of these references as duplicative.
  • Working on it.--WillC 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make the lead more summary in nature you should include more aftermath and ratings information if possible.
  • Aftermath was apart of the project's MoS but FA reviews thought it was not useful in the lead.
  • You over wikilink in the lead. I find this a lot with articles. Specifically, Chronology does not need to be linked, also championship seems a bit unnecessary when you later link to the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. It's debatable so I'll leave it up to you. You have a lot of links in the lead and removing a few would help. H1nkles (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I did not notice that until today. I'll fix it quickly.--WillC 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I fixed the lead to the best I can at the moment.--WillC 19:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Lead after fixes

This is both a response to your fixes and more detailed recommendations for further fixes.

  • If community consensus is to put results in the lead then so be it, I won't fail it for that.
  • You wikilink Promotion to Professional wrestling promotion. Upon reading this page it appears as though it is referring to various Pro Wrestling organizations (WWE, TNA, NWA) rather than a specific event such as Slammiversary or Wrestlemania. This should either be delinked or the link should change, probably delinked in my opinion.
  • Quote, "Following the conclusion of the event, and while an independent construction crew hired by TNA was dissembling the event's set, a worker (Kevin "Angus" Sinex) fell to his death when the scaffold, which he was working, on broke and collapsed; causing him to fall nearly 20 feet (6.1 m) to the concrete floor below." This is a run on sentence and should be broken down into two or perhaps three sentences.
  • Look at the first sentence of the second paragraph. It is just an expansion on the KOTM sentence in the first paragraph. In order to keep the lead summary in nature I would remove this first sentence in the second paragraph or remove the KOTM sentence in the first paragraph and introduce it here in the second, I would also completely reword it. To do this I would end the sentence with "Rhino" and start a new one with, "In doing so, Samoa Joe retained his championship. This is the first time a World Championship has been successfully defended in a KOTM match." I would then remove the same reference about World Championship defense in the first sentence of the third paragraph.
  • Prose problem in this quote, "Another featured match saw A.J. Styles defeat Kurt Angle...." A match doesn't "see" anything. Recommend rewording.
  • Quote, "...in a Tag Team match for the championship, in which LAX retained. Petey Williams also retained the TNA X Division Championship against Kaz in another standard wrestling match." Change prose in these two sentences, specifically with, "...in which LAX retained." If you are putting results in the lead this should be a separate sentence from the description of the match. Also you use the word "retained" in the following sentence. It's always good to not duplicate words in back to back sentences, consider changing the word to a synonym. H1nkles (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The background is probably going to have alot of problems so skip it and go to the rest of the article please while I work on the background a bit.--WillC 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops didn't read your comments, sorry. H1nkles (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like me to stop my review until you have time to work over the various sections? I can wait until Monday and give you the weekend to work it over. It's a longish article for a GA so I don't mind giving you a little time if you'd like. I won't put a hold on the review, just give it a little more time. What do you think? H1nkles (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can do it. I only feel the wrose section is the background. I was a bit busy yesterday. I'll get it fixed today.--WillC 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Background

  • First paragraph is a stub, two sentences, consider expanding or combining with second.
  • Delink Plots and Storylines as those links really do not apply to the article. If there are articles on general ideas related to Pro Wrestling storylines then this would be a useful wikilink. Otherwise delink. By the way, Hero and Villian are appropriately linked.
  • A thorough prose edit should be performed on this section. An example of poor prose is, "The main event at Slammiversary was for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship in the annual King of the Mountain match (KOTM), in which it involved five competitors fighting to gain a pinfall or submission....". Specifically, "in which it..." has too many articles.
  • Your links to some of the wrestlers' bios in this section are already linked in the lead. Delink wrestler bio articles that are already linked in the lead.
  • You already link "Special Guest Ringside Enforcer" in the lead, please delink it here. Same with "Standard Wrestling match".
  • Quote, "Later in that episode, Styles was attacked by Tomko, Booker T, and Team 3D after his qualification match with Booker T for the KOTM." Already stated earlier, consider rewording.
  • Quote, "continued the beatdown", the word "beatdown" is inappropriate for an encycopedic article. Please rephrase.
  • Quote, "after Sacrifice, Team 3D were scripted into a rivalry with Laz..." Is "Laz" supposed to be "LAX"? It's unclear.
  • Too many [] in "(Velvet Sky [Jamie Szantyr] and Angelina Love [Lauren Williams])"
  • Two "other" in this quote, " each other other the top rope." I think you mean "over".
  • Quote, "When it came down to the final two participants, it became a match in which you had to climb a ladder and retrieve a contract to win called a Ladder match." It's not appropriate to use the word, "you" in this context. Please reword.
  • Was Abyss truly acting schizophrenic? Perhaps you should use a more general term like "insane" this is just a suggestion.
  • Delink Singer for same reason as above.
I'll take care of all of these after a little while when I perform another giant copyedit over the background. I'm not happy with the background prose at all. I nominated it on Niovember 17, which means I probably had the background done on the 15. Since that day I've gotten two other articles to GA and one article to FA. I've becomed more expirenced and this in my opinion is very sloppy and badly written. I'll probably take care of everything above and more. At one point I thought this was my best work, oh boy was I wrong. I really need to cut it down as well.--WillC 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to hear you're on it. I'll start in on the next section. H1nkles (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Event

  • First paragraph about the Dark Match is a stub, it should either be expanded or eliminated.
  • You wikilink wrestlers names multiple times like Petey Williams, you should review the entire article and make sure you are not linking these names more than once.H1nkles (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, just link with caution, BTW Petey Williams is linked three times in the article.
  • The "Preliminary Matches" subsection also needs a good prose edit. Several small errors combine to make prose a problem.
  • Examples include, "Williams wore a protective face guard during the match, the reason was announced by Mike Tenay and Don West as a result of an injury Williams sustained a few weeks before the event" unnecessary to say who announced it, we already know who the announcers are, "Williams wore a protective face guard during the match due to an injury he sustained a few weeks...." (a suggested rewrite). Another example, "Williams claimed victory in the match after he grabbed Kaz and jumped over Kaz's back, while at the same time pulling Kaz's head backwards with his legs, causing him to perform a backflip and slam Kaz's head into the mat with a move Williams dubbed the Canadian Destroyer to gain the pinfall victory and to retain the X Division Championship". This is a run on sentence. Another example, "LAX won the match when Homicide pulling back on Devon's leg, which caused Devon to fall backwards" - If I understand the sentence correctly, "pulling" should be "pulled".
  • On a separate note, you have told the readers who the members of each tag team are earlier in the article, is it necessary to repeat it again here? H1nkles (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote, "The finish of the match saw Homicide pulling back on Devon's leg, which caused Devon to fall backwards" check use of the word, "saw".
  • Paragraph on the women's match is also a stub that should be expanded or combined with another paragraph.
  • Delink "Preacher" same reason as above. H1nkles (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you explain the concept behind the KOTM match, what the objective is? I don't recall. At any rate if you don't, then you should in the paragraph about the KOTM match. It is confusing for the layman reader to understand what the exact objective is. H1nkles (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Incident

  • The Rothstein quote is a bit confusing. Is this the official TNA press release/statement on the incident or is this a quote from a reporter for The Sun? Your source seems to indicate that it is the TNA press release. If this is the entire TNA press release then two things need to happen, One it needs to be ascribed to Dixie Carter as quoted in The Sun, since this is the person you ascribe it to in the article, and two you should remove the two quotes from the main article as the reader can read the full quote to the right and it isn't really necessary to quote a portion of it when the full statement is literally right on the same page.
  • Other than this the section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sun source is just a copy of TNA's statement. TNA does not keep stuff on their site for a long time. I couldn't find their statement so I got the one from The Sun since I believe they are reliable. Just a simple coppy and paste job.--WillC 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, the Sun quotes the TNA spokesperson. You should attribute the quote to the TNA and then indicate that it is found in The Sun. As it stands the reader thinks that Rothstein said the quote when in reality Rothstein is the person who wrote the article for the Sun. Does that make sense? H1nkles (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you fixed it in the article, much better. H1nkles (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well last night I took a final copyedit of the background. I have nothing left to do. I'm out of ideas to fix things, so I guess it is up to you to find the problems now.--WillC 21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aftermath

  • Quote, "Sting stuck Joe in the stomach and back with a baseball bat, which Sting held in his hand", do you mean "struck" or "stuck"?
  • Quote, "that Booker T did not win the championship, as a result of Sharmell not being an official referee", "as a result of..." is not correct wording here, should be "due to the fact that..." or something like that.
  • Quote, "Kurt and Team 3D claimed victory after Kurt's real-life bestfriend Frank Trigg". Where did Trigg come from. Throughout the article you are meticulous about naming each contestant in every fight. Where does Trigg come from, he is not mentioned in the fight's line up.
  • Quote, "Later, LAX challenged Storm and Roode to a match where real-life fans were placed around the ring with leather straps in-order to whip anyone who gets outside the ring in a match TNA calls a "Fan's Revenge" Lumberjack Strap match.[26] Storm and Roode accepted the challenge only after it was made for the World Tag Team Championship on the June 19 episode of Impact!.[26] Storm and Roode were defeated by LAX at Victory Road." This detail really has nothing to do with Slammiversary, it just discusses various people who were in Slammiversary but they did not fight each other or have any interaction during Slammiversary right? I think you should cut this detail out. H1nkles (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Reception

  • Why is it a subsection of "Aftermath"? It does not appear to be related to the scripted aftermath of TNA but is instead a report of the quality of the show from an entertainment perspective, it should be its own section.
  • Do you have any quotes from Waldman as to why he gave the rating he did?
  • Quote, "The DVD remained on the chart for two consecutive weeks, although it ranked lower after the week of September 20, 2008. During its final week on the chart, the week of September 20, it ranked number sixteen." These sentences are poorly written and probably should be combined. H1nkles (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Results

I assume the table format is consistent with community consensus within the Pro Wrestling Project, is that correct? They look fine I just want to make sure they are consistent. H1nkles (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same as other articles.--WillC 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Notes

  • Check the accessdates on some of the older articles. You have some dates from July 20th, which would be nearly 6 months old. For websites that can be ancient history. Anything before September should be updated.
  • You rely heavily on PWTorch.com for a lot of your citations. I counted at least 40 different references citing this website. I'm a little uncomfortable with such a heavy reliance on one source. I'm going to check some of the other Pro wrestling GA's to see if these passed with heavy use of this site. H1nkles (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overarching review

So my review is completed, you've worked on several of my suggestions. I have not reread the article so I don't know specifically all that has been changed. I will use this space to address the GA criteria and where the article either meets or does not meet the criteria. I will then put it on hold for you to make any final fixes to deem appropriate and then I will reread the article for a final GA determination.

  • Criteria 1 - well written - complies w/ WP:MOS
  • I am not an expert on the MOS but I have tried to point out where the article contains WP:Jargon and quote issues. Prose is an issue and a thorough prose review is strong recommended. If you have already finished this to your satisfaction then I will address it further when I reread the article for my final determination. If you haven't already guessed I'm a stickler for quality writing. I understand that this is a GAC not an FAC and I will not hold the article to FA level, but the writing should be far above average.
  • Criteria 2 - Factually accurate and verifiable.
  • My main concern here is your reliance on the source, PWtorch.com. I checked three other GAs on TNA wrestling, No Surrender 2008, Sacrifice 2008, Hard Justice 2008. No Surrender used the source 8 times out of 61 citations. Sacrifice used it 9 times out of 72 citations and Hard Justice used it 20 times out of 59 citations. This article uses it 40 times in 92 citations. I do look critically at any article that relies so heavily on one single web site for its source material. I understand that this may be the only one available. I would like to hear your thoughts on this concern. H1nkles (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern already highlighted were some of the accessdates. Please make sure they are updated to at least September.
  • Criteria 3 - Broad in coverage
  • I think for the most part this is good. I found myself bogging down when you were explaining every technical move involved in the various finishing moves that the wrestlers performed. I feel this is a bit too much detail but I let it slide as apparently these are described in other articles to the same detail and I'm a big proponent of consistency between articles in the same genre.
  • I'm not sure where this suggestion would fall so I'll put it here, you have a tendency to overwikilink. I think you've corrected some of the links, which is good. If you are going to reread the article again please look at it with a critical eye to the linking. Look for multiple links of the same thing and also look for links to wiki articles that really do nothing to support this article (like plot and chronology already discussed).
  • Criteria 4 - Neutral
  • Criteria 5 - Stable
  • This is met, stable article no edit wars or vandalism.
  • Criteria 6 - Images
  • The poster at the top of the article needs Fair Use rationale for use in this article. Please address that. The rest of the photos do qualify for use in the article, they are also relevant.

So that is all for my review. I look forward to seeing your edits. I will put the article on hold until Friday, 1/16 and then I will do my final review unless you need more time to make corrections. H1nkles (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA Determination[edit]

It looks as though your edits are complete so I have reread the article for final GA review. I put your article through the ringer and I think you did a good job of either fixing the problems or giving me good clear reasons why you disagree with my suggestions. As such I will pass the article as GA, congratulations! It was a pleasure to hash through this article with you. Many editors get defensive when I make suggestions or comments on their articles, it was nice to work with someone who was genuinely wanting to make the article better and was mature enough to take my suggestions as good faith attempts to help do just that. Please consider taking a look at the WP:GAC list and taking on a review to help with the backlog. In any event, well done and keep up the high quality work. Keep the faith my friend. H1nkles (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More