Talk:TNA X Division Championship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
review started --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria. Being a novice to professional wrestling, and perhaps being naive as well, I was astonished to learn that this was not legitimate, but a product of scripts and storylines.  :)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I'd question whether this is the best writing you guys can do. I've corrected a couple of spelling errors, but I ran completely aground when trying to figure out what you actually meant by the sentence(s) The enlarged red letter "X" was cut-down to fit the championship better. Replaced the word "Title" with "Champion" and sans-serif the word "Division" directly over the red letter "X" on the center plate... I thought about fixing it, but I'm not sure what the subject should be for the incomplete sentence beginning with "replaced." I was not aware that san serif was a verb -- silly me, I thought it was a style of type setting. Does this sound/work better?

^{The enlarged red letter "X" was reduced to fit the championship belt better, and the designer replaced the word "Title" with "Champion." The word "Division" appears in sans-serif directly over the red letter "X" on the center plate...}

This leads me to a second point about the writing: your lead is longish for an article of this length. There is redundancy, even to the point of the same sentence(s), such as the one about 38 matches and 19 champions.

Allow me to rewrite the belt description. I feel bad that the article has so many probelms. I didn't mean for that.--WillC 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I understand the problems of citing this, given that some of the citations come from your observation of the matches, but I suspect this falls into the category of "original research" then. So given the problem of citing what a ref says, and what the promotional materials said, I'm not sure that you can claim this is all based on secondary sources, although I did appreciate, as a reader, your commentary on the seeming disparity in how things were announced/promoted.

I knew the sources would become a problem. Alright the matches description in professional wrestling pretty much falls under common sense. Match explanations are hardly ever talked about in articles, because most people already understand the set up to a match. The promotal videos that I have used within the article are match desciptions that TNA have released to help people who do not understand the match. So using them and the informastion they have stated in there, it is no longer OR. The video for the Xscape match even gives the exact comments stated by the ring announcer before the bout. I try to avoid OR as much as possible, and I wouldn't leave anything in here if I believed I was violating that rule, just for you to know.--WillC 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   And it also looks like this article is a process of collaboration by wrestling fans. I like collaborative work, and the article reflects some of this collaboration.

Collaboration? No not really. I did it all by myself in a subpage. There isn't alot of people who work on TNA articles. There are about three who work and watch them. The rest are too bussy worrying about WWE ones.--WillC 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   It looks like someone has committed some vandalism, but I'm not sure. Yunz have reversed a few edits by 58.181.99.130 that looked like vandalism to me.

Yeah, he is normal. He vandalizes alot of articles. 58.181.99.130 shows up about once a day. I'm use to him. He isn't a bother. He is just a bored person.--WillC 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm not convinced that the fair use rationale for the photograph of the belt, but I guess if the original photo was a promotional photo your rationale is valid

It is cleared with the maker of the belts. The photos you see in the article came from the maker of this belt official website. Another user on here sent him an email asking if we could use his photos of the belts he has on his website in articles on here. He said yes and use as many as you like anywhere. There is a screenshot of that email linked in the descrition image. It is all clear.--WillC 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   In summary, I'd say this isn't ready for prime time (yet). It needs some work on your prose, and perhaps you might get a one of the guild of copy editors WP:GOCE to take a look (add your article to their backlog). In addition, there needs to be a way around the citation problem; citations based on your observation of a match just aren't, I'm sorry to say, reliable. Perhaps there was some commentary written. Finally, and this element did not appear in any of the criterion, but this is going to be an article requiring ongoing changes, right? As new champions take the belt, new stories emerge, the information in this article will change, yes? So based on that alone, even when you deal with the first two biggies, I'm going to then request a second opinion. Good luck improving the article! And nice job so far, too!--Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It will not change much. After a new champion comes in, there will only be changes to three or four places. No more than any normal article would get. Usually after an hour after a new champion is crowned, the belt is no longer edited. If you would like some more information, then look at the wrestling project's only GA championship article: the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). It gets more edits though because alot more people edit WWE articles. TNA championship articles, are rarely edited anymore.--WillC 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

additional questions

in "reigns" is there only one former champion, and the rest were contenders? If so, after Alex's name, you need to put ...and contenders .... etc.

This is much better, and much clearer for someone uninformed about wrestling. I'm going to contact one of the experienced editors about your sources problem, and make sure they are okay.  :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

oh, and I forgot, just put the info on the belt pictures in the permissions part, or notes part, or something. I think there is a template also that can be put on the discussion page that indicates the belt designer's consent. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be waiting.--WillC 08:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

one of the more experienced editors chimed in, and pointed out that you have some youtube.com sources--I suspect it is okay, at least it's probably a specialty broadcast of a match, but you might explain this in the footnote text itself, as to what this was and why it's a legitimate source....? and any other source like this. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as you can see by the publisher of the videos. They are directly from TNA Wrestling's official youtube account, which they have a link to on their official website and post the videos on their official website as well.--WillC 02:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

will and hippo, what is the agreement on this? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Will, but it looks like we have reached a compromise by moving the material to the Significant Moments section and stripping some of it out. --hippo43 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I've found no sources at this time that speak about the actually design just that they were changed I've decided that it is best to not include a detailed description of the belt at this time. Instead only that they were changed, which will be included in Significant moments at this time. If I do find a written source down the road I will probably readd the section though seeing as I feel it is notworthy. I don't see a problem anymore.--WillC 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks!  :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)