Talk:Destination X (2008)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I will begin this review shortly.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Review

This is a very complicated article with a great deal of information. Everything checks out for what I can tell. Nicely formatted! I made a few copy edits[1] which you are free to change.

There were a few places where I had questions about the prose:

• Lede

• This event marked the second time the Elevation X match was used by TNA. - what does "used by TNA" mean?
  • TNA created the match and this was the second time it was used. A scaffold match is somewhat rare in wrestling but has been done several times. They gave it the Elevation X name.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Storylines

• "with the two scheduled to face for the title at TNA's next PPV event Lockdown on April 13, 2008." - is "scheduled to face for the title" correct?
  • Yeah, but changed it to "fight for the title."--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Also connected was Cage's feud with Styles and Tomko" - Also part of the storyline?
  • Added "in the storyline" to clarify the sentence.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• "participants in the match fought in matches" - repetitious
  • Worked on it to clarify.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Rhino returned from injury attacking Storm during his encounter with Eric Young" - not clear what this means.
  • Worked on it to clarify.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• "fracturing her jaw in storyline" - in the storyline?
  • Fixed--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• "which gave Kim an injury in storyline" - in the storyline?
  • Fixed--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Aftermath

• "They got their championship match on the April 17 episode of Impact!" - doesn't sound right with "got".
  • Fixed--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I will put the review on hold.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead is very much a summary.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   All is in order.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced and accurately reflects the sources

   C. No original research:

   There is no OR

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers all aspects

   B. Focused:

   Remains focused on the article subject

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrally worded

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Very stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Public domain images; one fair-use that has the proper rationale

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Nicely illustrated with informative captions properly formatted.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the review and passing the article.--WillC 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)