The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [1].

---

TNA X Division Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): --WillC 04:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/TNA X Division Championship/archive1
• Featured article candidates/TNA X Division Championship/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it should be an FA. Plus the previous one had to be withdrawn due to a dispute. I assure everyone, that will not happen this time around. All concerns will be addressed quickly.--WillC 04:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• http://solie.org/titlehistories/ What makes this a reliable source? (Yes, I read the page, I'm not seeing how this satisfies WP:SPS.)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • That page should have said how they check their facts and where they get their information. Oh well. I can't say. It is used in multiple FLs, GAs, etc. So I can't say why it is considered reliable. Sorry. I'll ask the project.--WillC 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I can't explain how it is reliable, it should be alright to use, since it covers mainly non-controversial things. I'm also going to add more references to help verify the things solie covers.--WillC 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images should go through WP:OTRS Fasach Nua (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, well I have no idea how to do that. I would if I could understand how though. Never heard of that process before.--WillC 07:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • commons:Commons:OTRS Jappalang (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will upload them to commons shortly. I do not have a copy of the original e-mail, but the editor who sent it to the author is a friend of mine and I will ask him to send it to permissions as soon as I get in contact with him.--WillC 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have been uploaded. E-mail has yet to be sent, waiting to get in contact with the editor who sent the original e-mail to get a copy of it.--WillC 07:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments – I did a partial prose review at the first FAC, and will begin in the Creation section, where I stopped last time.
• "Later, A.J. Styles would defeat...". Changing the last part to "defeated" would take out some passive voice, which can tighten the writing in a given sentence.
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Significant moments: Initials in parentheses would be nice for World Wrestling All-Stars.
• ", with then-champion Christopher Daniels (Daniel Covell) defending the championship...". → "; then-champion Christopher Daniels (Daniel Covell) defended the championship...". This change will give the sentence a better structure.
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "defending" is still in there. If that stays, the semi-colon should be a comma. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad, I must have missed that. Fixed now.--WillC 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "where Kurt Angle defeated Samoa Joe to not only win the TNA X Division Championship, but also the TNA World Tag Team Championship and to retain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship...". Another sentence in need of some structural improvement, such as this: "where Kurt Angle defeated Samoa Joe to win the TNA X Division Championship and TNA World Tag Team Championship, and retain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship...". Better, if still a touch long.
  • Done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Space in the middle of "sametime". Giants2008 (17-14) 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done--WillC 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--WillC 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text is now present, but it needs work, as it often mentions things that are not obvious to a casual viewer of the image. Alt text should be only about appearance. For example, the first alt text "The title belt contested for in TNA's X Division" doesn't say anything (other than "belt") about appearance, the second alt text has the same problem, and the 3rd alt text "A still image of a Ultimate X contest held in March 2006, with A.J. Styles [yellow trunks] and Christopher Daniels [red trunks] both trying to retrieve the X Division Championship belt, which is suspended on the steel red ropes" has some good alt text (which I've italicized) but most of it should be removed as it is not describing the appearance of the image in terms that a casual reader would easily understand. Could you please read WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then take another crack at it? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, will do.--WillC 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--WillC 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I never heard of alt text. Plus I must have forgot to say it was done. I believe I did it Wednesday or Tuesday.--WillC 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1c and 1d. I haven't evaluated the prose in-depth, but I see some basic problems with research/sources and neutrality. There is a heavy reliance on primary sources, and the secondary sources are quite weak. Solie.org is not acceptable. Are there no print sources that cover this stuff? Wrestling magazines with a reputation for fact-checking, an editorial staff, and so on? On the issue of neutrality, you have a section titled "Significant moments" that, on the surface, promises some departure from just listing match results and facts and perhaps some critical commentary. However, it is all sourced to primary sources and promotional material. As such, we have no independent, reliable commentary that these are indeed significant events. Primary sources cannot be relied upon for subjective matters. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see alot of primary sources within the article other than TNA, which I don't see how is a bad thing since the project feels the promotion's site is the most reliable one. Solie has been agreed on as reliable because they get their information from magazines, books, etc. Also the claims it covers also have extra citations to back them up. It is also used in multiple FLs, GAs, FAs, etc. As for print sources, IDK. I don't buy wrestling magazines and I don't know of anyone from the project that has alot of them. I've checked some when I'm at the store here and there but none had anything on the history of the X Title or the X Division. While the Significant moments section is sourced mainly by third party. Though Slam Sports could be considered primary but has always been called a third party site. WrestleView is also within that section. While I only see two or three refs from TNA, when one of them could be removed. While your "critical commentary" state would suggest you wish for reception within the article. That would be hard to even add and at the sametime wrong. The only opinions when it comes to the title is mostly always directed at the division itself, so then that would be better placed within the X Division article. I ask for you to reconsider your vote, while I begin looking for more refs.--WillC 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary sources can be used for basic facts, but when they are used heavily in an article, a dearth of independent commentary is created. My point about critical commentary is that when there are notable sporting events, they are inevitably covered by the prominent media for that sport. This media provides independent coverage and commentary, as well as support for statements that the events are notable or significant. This may take some time in a library with access to newspaper and magazine archives to discover. I'm not sure who was involved in agreeing that Solie is reliable, but I would like to see a reliable source referring to them as reliable or authoritative. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • TNA is still a pretty small company. They aren't covered widely in the mainstream media. They are covered widely in the wrestling community since 2006 but there are very few reliable sources when it comes to wrestling. The lead and from speciality matches down can all be sourced by non-TNA refs. Slam Sports, WrestleView, and PWTorch all have plenty of refs to cover that information. While the X Division section is tough. Before 2004, wrestling websites did not cover TNA all that much in depth. Most felt TNA would not last over a year, so they didn't waste the energy. 7 years later they have a bit more. But with the X Division section, most of the claims there are by TNA and would be best sourced directly to the DVDs in which these statements are made. There are a fair amount of TNA refs within the article, but recently TNA have been uploading footage from their early years and I felt it would be useful to add to the article. I'll search for a link. It shouldn't be much of a problem if I don't. All the information solie sources within the article is backed up by another citation or is non-controversial.--WillC 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are a small company not covered in reliable sources, why do they have an article? More to the point, if there is not much information available in secondary sources, this article should be trimmed down and merged. I'm sorry, but this is not at the FA level. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Primary sources might be considered reliable for sourcing champions and dates of reigns, but using them for history and significant events are another thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • TNA is covered but not "widely". They don't get spots on NBC, CBS, etc because wrestling doesn't anymore unless there is a drug scandal. They are notable enough for articles as you can see by the massive amounts of expansion this article has went under in the pasted few months with reliable sources presented. Maybe you can be more in depth on how it is not. Because the sourcing problem can be taken care of in a few minutes, which it will.--WillC 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of 35 refs, only 10 are primary at the moment. I'm still trying to bring that number down.--WillC 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.