Talk:Slammiversary (2005)/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by MathewTownsend in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Background
  • "with credit for the name going to TNA wrestler Shark Boy" - I don't see that in the citations.
  • "TNA released a poster promoting the event featuring the tagline "Three Year Anniversary Spectacular" at some point beforehand. TNA planned a thirty-minute pre-show prior to the event" - is this necessary, as I don't see it in the references.
    • Its part of the production of the event; both are kinda common sense, since they are right in front of the reader. The pre-show occurred and the poster is in the article.--WillC 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Storylines
  • I understand the various storylines. Where I get confused is sentences like: "The TNA X Division Championship was defended by then-champion Christopher Daniels against Chris Sabin and Michael Shane in a Three Way match at Slammiversary." - because all these are storylines leading up to Slammiversary, right? Hard Justice etc.? And Slammiversary hasn't happened yet in the article.
  • This is clear: "A storyline heading into Slammiversary revolved around America's Most Wanted (Chris Harris and James Storm; AMW) recent losing streak and decension ... " because it's clear that Slamiversary hasn't happened yet. It is "Event".
  • Well its all meant to be in past tense. I could change that one to "TNA promoted a Three Way match for the TNA X Division Championship between then-champion Christopher Daniels, Chris Sabin, and Michael Shane heading into Slammiversary."--WillC 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reply
  • I'm not underestimating the job you have done in putting this article together. You have done a big job. Much if it is just that I'm not familiar with topic enough. I think that making it clear in the "pre" sections that Slammiversary hasn't happened, perhaps by mentioning it as little as possible until you get to the "Event". Just a suggestion, as I'm not the one who wrote the article, nor could I do so! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reply

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: 
    Problems have been cleared up.
    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: