Talk:TNA World Beer Drinking Championship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• ok, I'll review it shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   • "and Young took the championship with him, having apparently won it" - took the championship, like walking out the door with it?

   • I rewrote sentence, but yep that's pretty much the point. Storm passed out, so he won. Picked up the title and walked away.--WillC 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   • "The first round was a "never have I ever" round" - what is this?

   • Sadly, this was a time when TNA wrote some of the dumbest stuff. Its a skit. They are playing beer games. I tried to explain what was going on better.--WillC 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   • "The second round was contested with both participants having beer bottles taped to their hands and neither being allowed to go to the bathroom. - what's happening here. I don't get it.

   • Extension of the skit. They were trying to be funny.--WillC 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   • "Young won after Storm wet himself, which was confirmed by the newly named Jackie Moore". - "wet" as in peeing? Who is Jackie Moore?

   • Yes, exactly. I felt it sounded better than peeing. Ms. Jackie renamed. I explained that better.--WillC 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   • "after interference from Rhino" - what is "interference" here?

   • Fixed--WillC 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   • "Storm won the bout after Moore retrieved the championship for him without the referee seeing" - explain? What didn't the referee see?

   • Fixed--WillC 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

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

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Also, I made some edits which you should check for accuracy - that I didn't inadvertently introduce error.[1]
• I will put this on hold so you can respond.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• just one more qurestion: "The first round was a "never have I ever" round, in which the participants had to admit to experiences they had never been involved in. If the opponent had partaken in a similar action he was forced to drink a shot." Do you mean that if the westler had never had the experience, but his oponent has, then the oponent is forced to drink another shot? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, best way I know how to word it currently.--WillC 23:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for passing and reviewing this article.--WillC 23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)