Talk:Turning Point (2004 wrestling)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Additional comments are always welcome. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Assess Criteria
1. well written
x
    (a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
x
    (b) complies with Manual of Style:
x
         lead
x
         layout
x
         jargon
x
         words to avoid
x
         fiction
x
         list incorporation
2. factually accurate and verifiable
x
    (a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
x
    (b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
x
    (c) no original research
3. broad in coverage
x
    (a) addresses main aspects of topic
x
    (b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
4. neutral
5. stable (no edit wars)
6. images
x
    (a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
x
    (b) relevant to topic with suitable captions

Well written[edit]

  • Need to fix the prose in a few areas. Look below for any outstanding issues that should be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing that keeps bothering me is the format of the PPV titles. Shouldn't they be in italics or quotes? If not, why not? Looking at the wrestling PPV's by category, I don't see any that use italics or quotes. Obviously, this must be the convention, but I have never run into it before, so I'm a bit curious. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it is against the Manual of Style. I forget the link but this problem was discussed once before why we don't must italics. It was a big discussion that ended when someone showed a link against it in the MoS.--WillC 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you answer my question about the use of storyline build in the "Background" section? Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well seeing as pro wrestling is scripted, we try to write in that frame that the feuds are fake but the slams are real. You'll have to be more clear on your question about it.--WillC 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but I'm talking about the word choice. The typical term is "storyline build up" or "buildup". Where do you get "storyline build" from? I would appreciate it if you look into this and fix it if necessary. I'm going to pass this as GA now, because it meets the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some questions in the "Reception" section below. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable[edit]

Neutrality[edit]

Images[edit]

  • Images checked for copyright status, fair use rationale, relevance and captions. Everything looks great. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout concerns listed below in relevant subsections. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By section[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • You say that XXX had to disband twice in the lead. There are several ways of dealing with this, but the easiest is just to remove it from the first instance, as it is implicit in the subsequent win, and leave the second instance intact since this is the place it needs to be said. This means rewording the second paragraph to something like, "The main event was a Six Sides of Steel cage match with a pre-match stipulation that the losing team would disband. America's Most Wanted (Chris Harris and James Storm) (AMW) defeated Triple X (Christopher Daniels and Elix Skipper) (XXX) in the cage match." Of course you can change that around, but you get the idea. That way, you can keep, "The event is mostly remembered for the main event, in which XXX had to disband", although I would change that as well, to something like "Turning Point (20024) is remembered for the disbanding of XXX in the main event." Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it, this was a simple fix, so I went ahead and did it.--WillC 08:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the change. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I see you using double parens. to introduce the reader to the initialism before using it, and it looks like this is the way you do it for all wrestling articles you write. But, is this the right way to do it? I ask because I suspect the initialism should be part of the original parens. and not follow it with another parenthetical. I have no idea how it is supposed to be done, but something like, Triple X (XXX, Christopher Daniels and Elix Skipper) or America's Most Wanted (AMW) (Chris Harris and James Storm) might work. My understanding is that the initialism should follow the actual term. No big deal on this, but I'm interested where you adapted the current style from in the first place. One other reason this is a problem is because it duplicates the parenthetical referencing style, and that's obviously not what you are doing. There's a rule for formatting double parens. like this, but I don't recall what it is. :) Don't worry too much about this, I'm just curious if you remember where you got it from. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why, I just do. I guess I followed the example per other ppvs. I can replace one with hypens if you want?--WillC 10:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm almost certain the format is wrong. Let me look into this a bit more. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To avoid confusion, I just removed all instances of initialisms. Believe it or not, it actually seems to work. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More notably was a move during the match in which Elix Skipper stood on top of the cage and grabbed Chris Harris by the head with his legs, fell backwards, which caused Harris to be pulled him off of the top in a move known as a hurricanrana or a frankensteiner, however Skipper has dubbed this move the "New School".
We need a slight rewrite to fix the sentence here. "...to be pulled him off of the top" doesn't make sense, so please try to rewrite that part. Also, this long sentence is a good candidate for splitting into two for readability. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll do that tomorrow. A bit tired at the moment.--WillC 10:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about this so it took me a bit longer than I wanted too. I reworded it and cut it down at the sametime. Hope you like it, and also for you to know, take your time with the review. I'm in no rush. I'm just glad I have a review :).--WillC 08:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huge improvement, great job. :) I might tweak it a bit if I get a chance, but for now it is fine. I'll try and make some progress on the review in the next hour. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--WillC 19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kapur says that Turning Point was NWA-TNA pay-per-view's "first foray into monthly PPV's, a change from their former weekly offerings – ie: their first chance to compete in the WWE's proven playground." That's an interesting factoid that would go well (rewritten of course) in the article and the lead section. Of course, this is not necessary for GA, but something you might want to consider. It would also cover the "business" angle, which hasn't received as much coverage in this article as it could. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Kapur wrote that wrong. Victory Road (2004) was their first monthly PPV. Turning Point was their second. Also for the NWA-TNA thing, yeah they were referred to as that for a while but at this point they held the event just as TNA.--WillC 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • This match was contested inside a 16 foot (4.9 m) high steel structure with six sides—known as Six Sides of Steel; to win a person must either gain a pinfall or submission.
    • Shouldn't this be in the beginning of the paragraph, before you introduce the tag team? As the reader, that's what I would want to see. Introduce me to the main event, then tell me who the wrestlers are; right now you've got it reversed. Let me try this. If you don't like it, revert it. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storyline build to this match
    • I changed this because the term is "storyline buildup". Where did you get the term "storyline build" from? Keep in mind, formal language is used in the encyclopedia whenever possible, which is why I changed it to "The buildup to the match storyline", which is about as formal as you can get. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • then being unable to get to their feet before the referee counted to ten until there was one left, who won the match for his team
    • I'm assuming you mean AMW? I can't tell from this sentence. "Who won the match for his team"? Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rewrote the explanation and it is mentioned before the explanation that AMW won the encounter.--WillC 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The teams fought at TNA's previous and first monthly three-hour PPV event, Victory Road, in an Elimination Last Team Standing match, resulting in a victory for America's Most Wanted. In an Elimination Last Man Standing match, a series of events must take place to eliminate a participant. First a participant must be pinned then the pinned participant has until the referee's count of ten to reach their feet before they are officially eliminated from the match. The first two members of a team to be eliminated lose the contest.
    • Hey, good work on explaining this to the reader. We need more of that. One thing though, I would prefer to read that America's Most Wanted won the match after you explain it. I'll change this around but if you don't like it, please change it back. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alot of people are against the explaning of terms, so it is nice to know it does help.--WillC 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you serious? That's an incredibly important task, and you've done a great job with it. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, alot of people want to get rid of the entire format. The storyline build, the begining sentence explaining wrestling, explaining mathes, explaining moves, etc. They don't to accept that wrestling is not understanded by everyone.
  • Daniels insinuated that the two were scheduled
    • Instead of saying "the two" can you just specify "X and himself" where X is the other wrestler you are referring to above? Or, if you can think of another way to say it, great.Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed it to teams.--WillC 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Event[edit]

Preliminary matches
  • File:Abyss and Rhino in London Sep 2008.jpg is cutting into the next section at different resolutions. I understand why you placed the image there, because you wanted to align it with the Serengeti Survival match paragraph, which makes perfect sense, but as far as layout goes, it would look better if you moved it up to at least the previous paragraphs, or failing that, the beginning of the preliminary matches section. This way, the image won't cut into the next section. Of course, you could always just change the image use or use {{clear}} but I don't think those are the best options here. It's up to you. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved it up to the beginning of the section. Another simple fix.--WillC 08:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NWA World Tag Team Championship was fought for in the first match, with the 3Live Kru (B.G. James and Ron Killings) defending the championship against Team Canada (Bobby Roode and Eric Young), who were accompanied by Coach D'Amore.
    • Why not just say: "In the first match, 3Live Kru (B.G. James and Ron Killings) defended the NWA World Tag Team Championship against Team Canada (Bobby Roode and Eric Young), who were accompanied by Coach D'Amore." Doesn't that say the same thing in less words or does it lose something? Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team of Héctor Garza, Sonjay Dutt, and Sonny Siaki were pitted against the team
    • Can you clarify that this is the second match? Or not? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garza, Dutt, and Siaki won the match after Graza jumped off the top rope backwards and twisted in mid-air to perform a corkscrew moonsault onto Kazarian for the pinfall victory.
    • I wanted to compliment you on this sentence. It's great! Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

  • Afterward, Daniels went on to make successful defenses, winning the championship four times; Skipper's singles career was not as victorious.
    • Is this sourced somewhere else in the article? Any claim about another persons career will need some kind of reference due to WP:BLP. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crap, I can't believe I forgot to source that. I'll source it with bio articles from Slam Sports on Daniels and Skipper.--WillC 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sourced it.--WillC 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • Writer Bob Kapur of the Canadian Online Explorer rated Turning Point a 7 out of 10,[9] which was the same as the 2005 event's rating.[18]
    • I understand that for sports fans, comparing data is an important part of the discourse. And I also know that this is a convention you are using across the board in all of the related articles. But this comparison isn't explicitly made by the sources, after all, you are comparing an older statistic with a newer one. I think it is acceptable because it is the same topic and event, and you are just stating a simple fact about the rating. I'm curious though, have you done this type of comparison anywhere else in the article? If you have, I would like to know about it. Thinking about it a bit more, it might even be possible to reword it so that there isn't a problem, but for now it is fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I haven't. The reception section is fairly new to the project and PPV articles. We haven't worked out all the problems with it. At the moment none of us have gotten that creative with it and we are all still on the first format we began to use in SummerSlam (2003).--WillC 22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll let this sit for a few hours and come back to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, sorry the article is in bad shape. I thought it was better than this. I guess that one month of waiting on GAN actually changes your (me) opinion on articles. Hopefully I wrote Final Resolution and Against All Odds better.--WillC 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need to be so hard on yourself. These kind of issues crop up in every article, and we will have them fixed asap. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just don't want to cause problems. I usually try to make it as easy for the reviewer as possible.
                • You haven't caused any problems. In fact, you've taught me a few things about the Wrestling project I never knew before this review, so I'm happy. But, I think I might have caused some problems with my crazy rollback. :( Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just put the entire "Reception" section in its own level2 section? Logically, I can undertand why you made it a subsection of "Aftermath", but it isn't necessary. Your choice, of course. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is per the project's MoS. But I've been inclined to making it a single header. Just didn't feel the section was long enough. But I guess it won't hurt making it a level 2. Done.--WillC 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The X Division Championship and main event bouts gained better views from Kapur.
    • That's strange wording. Do you mean it garnered better reviews? Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNA later released a DVD counting down the top 50 moments in their history
    • Can you describe the date or title of the DVD here? "Later released" is somewhat vague. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

  • Per WP:SEEALSO I don't see a need to link to TNA Turning Point in the see also section, and it is already linked at least 5 times in the article, last time I checked. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it is only linked four times, three of those being within templates. With the see also link that makes five. I usually do this for all of the events, just for chronology and event history sake.--WillC 08:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No big deal; I just wanted to raise the issue. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  • Fields, such as author, title and dates are filled out. One thing that stands out is the heavy use of only two sources, Pro Wrestling Torch and Canadian Online Explorer. PWT is a redirect to Wade Keller, an article with no references, which is a red flag as far as WP:RS goes, but it does have a print edition, and is probably a good source of information in the wrestling world, but one has to wonder if this topic has been covered in any other sources. No action as of yet, just an observation to keep in mind. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wade Keller is a writer for PWTorch. Most underclass articles for wrestling that have nothing to do with glorified World Wrestling Entertainment (pardon my disdain, but the project is more centered around them than anything else) will not get much watch. Before me TNA wasn't even watched and just a breeding ground for bad content, with about five users at most even editing the articles, while the rest were ips. There are probably reliable sources out there, it is just not the project's main concern, WrestleMania 25 is; well to most besides me and about a few others. Turning Point has been covered by multiple sources and Elix Skipper's hurricanrana off the cage can be found all over youtube and is thought to be one of the craziest spots ever in wrestling. I just like to use PWTorch and Slam sports since they are the most reliable sources the project has besides the Wrestling Observer and the company sites. Can't find anything on those since neither keep alot of old sources to my knowledge. Our project is tight on reliable sources and tighter on TNA sources since they are more underground. I can assure you everything in that article is reliable or unknown at current but used in a way that it will do more good than harm. 411Mania and Pro Wrestling History are the only ones that are questionable. But are used in a way they pass. 411 is a dvd review source and 411 is used in most GAs, so it passes in this, since it is being used to source where a match falls with-in the list of 50 greatest moments. If you have a problem with that I have the 50 Greatest Moments in TNA's history DVD. I will use Cite Episode and source that number with the dvd. Pro Wrestling history is used to source minor things like attendance and match times. Our project has an ego complex, they are unsure of themselves. It feels it is being looked down by other projects and, as a result, are more strict than anyother project. We had an argument over saying bye to a user who left pedia. In wrestling when someone is released from their contract by a company, the company usually places a note on their site saying he/she has been released. They state "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling has come to terms on the release of Hulk Hogan as of today, April 6, 2009. TNA wishes Hulk Hogan the best in all future endeavors.". Most of the time someone will state on the project's talk page "Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling has come to terms on the release of Wrestlinglover as of today, April 6, 2009. Wikipedia wishes Wrestlinglover the best in all future endeavors." This has been done hundreds of times. But the last one, and I say last one since no one wants that to happen again, the shit hit the fan and it turned into a entire day of madness, with reverts or removing it, arguing, and just plain dumb stuff. The project recently lost alot of users because of becoming even more strict with having a Out of Universe format. The articles use to be written as if they were in fan's perspective. Alot of new users hated the change, alot of ips did as well, plus some long time ones as well. The format is not perfect and has caused alot of problems among the project. Now only a handful of established users stand. The rest are newbies who pop in once a month or week. Me and two or three users are left expanding PPVs. I'm the only current one. The others have moved on to other things, one is expanding articles to GA or FA for other project's articles and popping in once in a while; another is expanding wrestling lists to FL and other stuff. While the last one is semi-active. That explains why some articles have no sources. Not enough ones with knowledge on the subject are there to expand them.--WillC 05:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Recommend the use of the {{cite video}} or {{cite episode}} template here for consistency, since cite templates are already in use, although this is purely optional. I believe it would provide more information, however, and allow editors to use the references in the article along with the time field, which as the template specifies is "useful for citing specific scenes, quotations or data". Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't really help much, the episodes are hard to get and only recently became available on itunes but not sure if the 2004 episodes are available. Plus not exactly sure the times of any of the segments. All the references are just reviews of the events in 2004/2005 besides a few.--WillC 04:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to let this pass, but I noticed the reference isn't fully filled out with the usual information. I'll try and help with this. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How so? The lay out of the references have never been a problem before to my knowledge.--WillC 22:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, to start with, I don't see a publisher. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The publisher section is in each one of the refers. The work section is missing but I just added those in.--WillC 22:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, the publisher isn't italicized and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling is really just the promoter (and that shouldn't be in italics if it isn't part of the title). The publisher for the Turning Point DVD appears to be Navarre Corporation. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • All dvds are produced my TNA Home Video. I must have forgot to change those.--WillC 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Good to know. Please add it to the ref. FYI... this is why I use the cite template. :) Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Added and changed to template.--WillC 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If Navarre Corporation is only the distributor, you probably don't need to add it. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well technically both do. So, it would be best to lsit both.--WillC 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

  • Looks ok, but when I visited the link I couldn't find anything about the PPV event depicted in the article. I know it sounds like nitpicking, but when I visit a link, I want to find information about the article. Obviously, this is the general link to the production company, and that is fine, but if you can figure out a way to link to information about the subject, that would be great. No big whoop if you can't. Also, I found it curious that the link couldn't be added to the infobox, so I made an unrelated query over on Template_talk:Infobox_Wrestling_event#URL_field.3F. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TNA Wrestling are a weird bunch. They don't keep results for any of their pasted PPVs, and if they do they aren't that helpful, really just praising the event but never state what you need unless it is a very big deal. You'll only be able to find events up to a few months ago. The link is there just to follow the style guide and to give the company's website. Other than that, I don't know why I even include it. though I forgot I also include other sites for DVD information. Those must have slipped my mind with this one. See Slammiversary (2008)#external links to see what I usually do.--WillC 04:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turning_Point_(2004_wrestling)/GA1&oldid=1117833280"