Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [1].

Turning Point (2008)

edit

Turning Point (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): WillC 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... its failed 3 nominations due to lack of support. I think it meets the criteria. I'll review for a review. You want me to review an article you got up, I'll do a deep review for a review of this one.--WillC 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I just went through and did some copy editing, feel free to revert any of my changes if you think they made things worse. The prose seemed ok to me (I'm not the best judge though). There were a couple sentences that I thought needed some more help:
  • "This followed later with Styles missing a pele kick on Sting, which allowed him to pin Styles with a small package to retain the championship."
  • "The number the participant was eliminated determined his ranking in getting a future TNA X Division Championship match, in storyline." Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one wishes to give comments I gather? I'm expecting this to be closed soon. Guess I'll have to renominate it again.--WillC 06:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disinclined to close a FAC for lack of review so many times, so this one can sit here a bit longer until some kind person decides to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good. I don't want to have to nominate this a fifth time anyway. Anything I can do to get that review? I don't mind reviewing another article for one or something along those lines.--WillC 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 00:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.--WillC 05:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Turning Point (2008).jpg still needs a bit of work. See WP:FUR for what should be included. —Andrewstalk 05:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not exactly sure what else to do. It had a different Fair use explanation, but another Media reviewer came through and changed it during the first or second review.--WillC 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the poster is the primary visual image for the 2008 Turning Point? Say so. Describe why the non-free content it is needed in the article, and how it significantly enhances readers' understanding. —Andrewstalk 05:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I gave it a shot.--WillC 07:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not quite there (IMO). See File:Wonder World Tour poster.png for an example. —Andrewstalk 09:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I looked and took a few lines from its purpose of use if that is alright to help better the understanding of use.--WillC 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. —Andrewstalk 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criterion 3 only. —Andrewstalk 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please check my edits. The prose is a bit slack in places, have a careful read through to see if there is any redundancy or lack of clarity.
  • first event under the name to take place in November. It was originally scheduled to take place in December, but TNA moved the event to November in late 2008 for an unknown reason — why is this notable enough for the lead?
  • I'd assume the date being changed somewhere around a month before it took place would be notable enough for the lead. Also considering, Turning Point was an annual December event since 2004. This being the one to break that and set a new consistency with future events.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 7 out of 10 — why "a"?
  • on-screen co-owner (twice) — I don't understand why he's only co-owner when he's on-screen. Needs clarifying or correcting.
  • Had to do with a storyline that started at the same time that would be pointless to explain in this article. Mick Foley was announced on the October 23 episode of Impact!" that he had bought half the shares of TNA from Jeff Jarrett, becoming part owner. It was pure storyline. I could change it to "storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley" or "co-owner of TNA Mick Foley, in storyline,..."--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • Hall, however, legitimately no-showed the event citing "food poisoning" as a result, leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse — two "legitimately", who decides legitimacy?
  • Jarrett, however, recommended Abyss as Angle's opponent, who was standing behind Angle in the ring and was a casualty of Angle's the previous week — confusing, at one point I thought Angle was standing behind himself!
  • Storm spat beer in Sabin's face, which led to Beer Money gaining the pinfall — the cause and effect isn't obvious to me
Alright I will handle these sometime tomorrow.--WillC 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes, and the points that you haven't accepted are individual style preferences. FWIW, one way of explaining material without disrupting the text is to use footnotes, as in this current FAC. It's particularly helpful when what might be obvious to an American fan is less clear to a Brit non-aficionado. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments they were greatly and I mean greatly appreciated. Made my day when I saw them. Been waiting so long for them and your support. WP:PW is all about explaining out to the uninformed reader. I will definitely take a look into the footnotes idea when I (massively) re-write Sacrifice (2008) for my next FAC nomination.--WillC 12:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Based on prose only. Presuming prior FAC attempts validated the sources, images etc. --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander :

  • Overall, the prose is workmanlike. I wouldn't call it scintillating, but on the other hand I'm hard-pressed to identify shortcomings.
  • Prose: "The match came down to Lethal and Young, which Young won ... ". Seems like "which" is modifying the noun closest: Young. But I think it is intended to modify "match". Perhaps reword
  • Prose: " The match was announced as following lucha libre tag team rules, where a participant could ...". Use of "where" in that manner is a bit too informal for an encyclopedia. Re-word?
  • Term: "domestic buyrate" - what is that?
  • Term: "The build to the encounter between .." - "Build up" is more conventional, but maybe "build" without the "up" is wrestling argot?
    • Tried to make it sound more formal or "production based", in order to get away from the wrestling aspect of storylines and make it more about the event. Like the Superbowl being about the event and telecast more than just football idea. How so much is brought into the overall process. Thats why I used "build" as a means of showing the way they promoted the event, than the event promoting the storylines which is how most events are written these days it seems.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics? DVD: "... as part of the "TNA Wrestling: Cross The Line Vol. 2" box set, ..." If that is a DVD title, maybe it should be italicized. Not sure about that.
  • Spell check - I ran it through a spell checker, and it looks good.
  • Spot checks on sources: I looked at 3 of the sources, and they were consistent with the associated material. Was a more thorough spot check done in one of the prior FACs?
  • Leaning toward support: If the above items (from myself and Jimfbleak) are addressed, I would Support.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a spotcheck of this article's sources. Ucucha (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of a few random sources (out of 38 total footnotes) by Noleander:

  • FN 4:
Result: Validated
Article: "On the first day of 2008, TNA updated their official website to publicize the official dates for all of their PPV events to take place that year."
Source: [dated 1 Jan 2008] .. contains a list of event dates
  • FN 12:
Result: Validated.
Article: "Sting's and Styles' rivalry soon escalated to a point where storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley announced on the October 30 episode of TNA's television program TNA Impact! that the two would fight for the championship at Turning Point"
Source: "Mick Foley entered the Impact Zone and talked about the new remodeling that was done. Foley talks about voting and TNA in HD. He announced two big main events for Turning Point which include, Kevin Nash vs. Samoa Joe and Sting defending the TNA Heavyweight Championship against AJ Styles. "
  • FN 14:
Result: Partially validated. But "history of no-showing" not found in source.
Article: "Hall, however, missed the event citing "food poisoning", leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse; Hall has a history of no-showing events."
Source: "As the afternoon progressed and Hall wasn't answering his phone, a lot of concern grew within TNA that he was going to no-show. There was said to be hope as the PPV went live that he would eventually show up. However, Hall sent word that he had food poisoning and couldn't make it."
I expected this to come up. I could probably use a bio to source the extra part or just remove it. I was hoping it would fall under good faith or common sense, but that regarding wrestling. Its common sense in this world. Universal not really. So, its not that important, I might as well remove it. Its about the match, not Hall.--WillC 03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if there is an article about Hall, it belongs there. --Noleander (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, its been removed.--WillC 03:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 19:
Result: Validated.
Article: "Angered by Jarrett's refusal, Angle began assaulting several wrestlers in TNA to persuade Jarrett into accepting the challenge."
Source: "…Kurt Angle entered the Impact Zone and attacked David Penzer. ... Security and referees came out to stop the beating, but also wound up taking shots from Angle. Jeff Jarrett came out and told Angle to let it go. Angle said that he wanted a rematch .... Jarrett went nuts and went after Angle, but security held him back...." [much more detail in source]
  • FN 20:
Result: Validated
Article: "On the October 23 episode of Impact!, Angle challenged Jarrett again to a rematch, which Jarrett again refused."
Source: " Borash asked Jarrett if he will give Kurt Angle the rematch against him that he wants. Jarrett said he doesn't always get all he wants in life, but he'll get over it. He said Angle will get over never getting a rematch. He said he has business to take care of, so he had to leave."
  • FN 23:
Result: source not available.
Article: "The event featured employees other than the wrestlers involved in the matches. There were four overall commentators for the event; Mike Tenay and Don West provided English commentary, while Hector Guerrero and Willie Urbina served as the Spanish announce team."
  • FN 24:
Result: Validated, if "Gore" is a high-angled attack
Article: "… and came to a finish when Rhino pinned Bashir after a high-angled tackle."
Source: "Bashir settled in the ring into a chinlock at 6:00. Rhino came back at 8:00 with a spinebuster. Bashir got upset with the ref and spit at him. Rhino then surprised with him a lousy looking Gore for the win."
  • FN 38:
Result: Validated
Article: "Eric Young got his TNA X Division Championship match on the November 13 episode of Impact! against then-champion Sheik Abdul Bashir."
Source: "Mick says he believes in second chances and then says that Eric Young earned a shot at the X-Division Champion."

End of Noleander source spot check. --Noleander (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

Comments

  • "Turning Point (2008) was a" was it actually called "(2008)"? It doesn't look that way from the poster.
    • No, but its meant to differentiate between the events "Turning Point was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event..." makes it sound like it is the only event in the series.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a US thing, but "under the Turning Point chronology " I would have thought it was "in" the chronology rather than "under" it....
  • Since you've just mentioned Canada, isn't it worth clarifying that " Phil Allely of The Sun " is a UK-based thing?
  • No need to link rock music.
  • "The promotional poster for the gathering was released some time prior through PPV providers featuring Mick Foley" -> "The promotional poster for the gathering, featuring Mick Foley, was released through PPV providers."
  • You don't need the {{see also}} link to pro wrestling, that's already been linked to and isn't particularly specific to this section.
  • " leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse" if he had food poisoning, what made it legitimate to be "angered"?
    • I had a statement which explained this more, but it wasn't in the reference. It was believed by TNA this was an excuse and Joe believed it was as well. I felt the statement made that clear enough as is.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joe and Nash's partnership seemed to come to a close after Nash disappeared from TNA television in mid-2008." -> "seemed to"? is that your opinion or is that a direct quote/ref?
  • Check images have alt text.
  • " (James Storm and Robert Roode; Pictured) " pictured no need for a capital P.
  • "was .5 above" ordinarily would expect 0.5 but perhaps this is a US thing.
  • Table fails MOS:DTT, it's inaccessible to screen-readers and no real reason that the font size should be 85%.
  • I thought MOS said to avoid using # as a replacement for "number"?
  • "X Division rankings match eliminations" table, Eric Young isn't linked first time.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have not yet had reliability of sources cleared on this FAC-- I listed it at WT:FAC days ago as still needing a source check for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, first time I've heard of this. Its had several source checks in the past. None seem to be outstanding. All issues appear to have been met. I can explain source reliability if needed again. The Sun and Slam Sports should be obvious. Meanwhile, Pro Wrestling Torch is a leader in wrestling news, its pretty much number 2 next to Wrestling Observer/Figure Four. It has been running in several ways since the late 80s. Their information is determined with sources from inside the companies, through the wrestlers, road agents, etc, via interviews, inside tips, etc. WrestleView prints its information by relay from Wrestling Observer, TNA, or PWTorch. The main journalist Adam Martin has interviewed several within the industry and been interviewed by several magazines and radio shows due to his connection with wrestling. They publish stories that are backed up by various people, rather than speculate like other wrestling sites. TNA, Pro Wrestling History, and HowStuffWorks is all that is left. TNA is primary, HowStufWorks is own by Discovery so obvious, and Pro Wrestling History is minor covering attendance and match times which are not detrimentally important to the article. I could probably remove it if needed, but was used in Lockdown (2008) when it was passed.--WillC 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of sources
  1. There is nothing here to indicate reliability: http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/about.html Please review WP:V and WP:RS and explain what makes this source reliable, according to policy. — SandyGeorgia 16:51, January 24, 2012 — continues after insertion below
    I'm already in the process of removing it to an extent. Its been a WP:PW thing to use it, I've disliked using it since I can't explain other than what I've been told so I've begun removing it with recent articles I've done such as Slammiversary (2005). I'm replacing the match times. The only thing it will be used for is attendance since the Impact! Zone is fed tourist from Universal Studios they always have the same number that its no longer posted by sites.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is nothing here that speaks to journalistic credentials or editorial oversight: http://www.wrestleview.com/info/staff.shtml Please explain what makes this a reliable source, according to policy.
  3. Here is one of many responses from WP:RSN about howstuffworks.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#HowStuffWorks.com Please address how that response relates to the text cited from this source in this article, specifically wrt the 1c requirement. Is it not possible to find a higher quality source to cover the text cited from this source? — SandyGeorgia 16:51, January 24, 2012 — continues after insertion below
    How it relates, the source is meant to cover a breif idea of the topic of wrestling rather than covering the event. As said there it's "basically factual" and it "over simplifys things" which is exactly what its meant for, to simply the nature of wrestling. Besides it I only know to cite a book, but I know of no published material which explains wrestling reliably. None have been popular to come to mind which are considered good besides tons of bios. I could use Bret Hart's biography which I have so it would be possible. He explains wrestling in depth and would obviously be a credible source in the subject as he grew up in the world and his father was a promoter who trained wrestlers.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I suspect there's a good chance that a case can be made that this source is reliable, but the case does need to be made, with respect to Wikipedia policy, not opinion: http://www.pwtorch.com/torchhistorypage.html Please make it.
    I'm going to cover this and WrestleView the best I can here. WP:PW has always had issues at explaining how sources are reliable, we've yet to convince anyone of a purely reliable source I know of besides published sources such as newspapers. As such it makes it difficult to use the self published idea. However, from what I know WrestleView should be considered reliable for the following. It is well established, as it has been around for over 12 years. They have an established staff that has gone through an application process. For a larger explanation see the one given by GaryColemanFan at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (2007)/archive2. That is pretty much all I know to say. Although, I have more info elsewhere. As I've seen several times other wrestling sites have mentioned Adam Martin, WrestleView, etc. However, they have not been proven so they are useless to mention. Just to make the argument though, referencing them would suggest WrestleView is seen as reliable, trustworthy, etc in the industry. Not sure if arguing that wrestlers have appeared on WrestleView's "radio network" would help justify, as I believe wrestlers would not be associating with an unreliable publication who can't get their facts straight. I've emailed the webmaster for information on their fact checking system and staff if it is anywhere on the website. I did discover a WrestleView history page, but its blank and supposed to be under renovation which has yet to be completed. Apparently it once existed. As for PWTorch, its a newsletter which has been running since 87. Wade Keller and James Caldwell have worked with the Wrestling Observer, ran by Dave Meltzer who has been interviewed and covered by Slam Sports, mentioned by wrestlers such as Bret Hart in his bio, featured in documentaries like Beyond the Mat, etc. If I can think of any other ways to prove the reliability of these sources I will. I'm looking for information on WrestleView.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Dispatch that should help in your work: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. And here's a page from another Project that shows how to establish a self-published source as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so I went through the article to see how important WrestleView is through it. Found a few that it could do without so they were removed. Also discovered a good amount of them aren't even by WrestleView themselves, they are repost from Wrestling Observer, PW Torch, and TNA which I believe would make them alright to use. The issue appears to be WrestleView rather than PW Torch. With the explanation given above on why WrestleView is creditable to use as well as now knowing that the information comes directly from known reliable sources, I believe the sourcing issue is solved now.--WillC 07:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looking at the HowStuffWorks reference, I see no problem with its use. It's a site that presents things in a "dumbed-down", but not factually incorrect, manner; but here it is simply used to cite a brief aside on the presentation of a professional wrestling event. However, if better sources are required for this, I believe that documentaries such as Beyond the Mat and Catch: The Hold Not Taken offer this same information—however, in a much more protracted manner which would make sourcing content to them slightly more difficult (if time references are required then separate citations would probably have to be made for each clause in the current sentence, as whole scenes in these films discuss one aspect at a time). Using a written work such as the Bret Hart autobiography mentioned above would prove equally problematic, as any of the wrestling autobiographies I've seen mention these things in passing (explaining, say, "works" and "shoots" in one place, "heels" somewhere else, and so on), requiring a simple sentence-long overview to be culled from a large range of individual pages. Perhaps a secondary citation to one of these features, without any specified time references, would serve to reaffirm the accuracy of the initial HowStuffWorks citation, without the need to rely on the larger work for specifics? I'm leaning towards supporting this one if this is clarified—I can dig up the information mentioned but as I no longer own a copy of Beyond the Mat, I'd be unable to provide any specific times, should they be required, and to be frank, I'm not keen on rereading a full novel-length biography to find citations for a single sentence. In all honesty I don't feel that the use of HowStuffWorks is unreliable given the content and context of the citation, however, and should probably stand on its own without any problems. I took far too long to say that, didn't I. GRAPPLE X 06:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Turning_Point_(2008)/archive4&oldid=1136094986"