Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Lockdown (2008)/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Lockdown (2008)

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to make it an FA. I need to get all the small things fixed. It is a little long but if you notice what type of matches took place and that it is TNA's third main ppv it is near impossible to get it smaller than it is. All the sources are reliable to my knowledge. They are PWTorch, Slam, Wrestling Observer, and WrestleView. I would like the references checked, if it is well written, if everything makes sense, and if anything can be taken out (besides background for matches).

Thanks, WillC 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Before I fully comment I just want to point something out you said. You state that because its TNA's third main PPV, it needs big length. I sort of disagree, SummerSlam (2003) was one of WWE's main ppv's and featured a caged match up and is way shorter. Another thing is, there is nothing wrong with writing every feud, but most feuds don't have buildup and shouldn't be added.--SRX 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well remember every match took place insides a steel cage on this PPV. And I'm not saying just because it is number three to Slammiversary and Bound for Glory it should be long. But in the xscape match you had eliminations, then in cuffed in the cage you had 11 eliminations, then in Lethal Lockdown you had entrances. I gave you a link to the ppv, I found it on Dailymontin the other day. If you have time watch it. It is a pretty good ppv, you can see alot of things happened that are notable and I tried my best to only mention the more notable things.--WillC 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008

edit
  • First thing I noticed is that the background and event sections are much bigger than the recently passed wrestling FAs. I urge you to reconsider this. In my time at FAC, I've noticed that wrestling articles struggle to attract reviewers who aren't wrestling fans. I fear that a longer article might turn off reviewers.
    • Well the main reason they are long is I feel if I don't explain what the other matches meant then I'm leaving out important information. Like the other matches were filler when they weren't. They each got time and considerable build to each one that are explained in the background. I tried to mention only the important stuff as well. Now I'll try to cut the event down.
  • Problematic sources: prowrestlinghistory.com, wrestlingobserver.com (I don't believe the FAC source-checkers regard Meltzer as a reliable source), 411mania.com (the author isn't football's Larry Csonka, right? Just curious.), and prowrestling.about.com.
    • I'm not sure what to say. Just the The Great American Bash and SummerSlam were pasted with those sources. Larry Csonka I have no idea who he is. I just know he works for 411Mania and Wrestling Observer.com.
  • You may wind up with a problem having two fair-use images when this becomes a candidate. Keeping in mind there are plenty of pictures, consider losing the DVD image and just going with the poster.
    • I can get rid of the DVD image. Though that and the poster are the only fair-use images.
  • Some prose checks. This is from background: "These matches were planned with predetermined outcomes by TNA's creative staff and feature wrestlers playing a character for the entertainment of the audience." The correct tense for this is "featured".
    • Fixed
  • In the team match, Devon Hughes has one bracket too many.
    • That is there because Devon was apart of Team 3D and it was better than having parenthesis in parenthesis.
  • "made his debut in the promotion at their November pay-per-view, Genesis in 2007." Last part of this is quite awkward. Try November 2007 event; I think that would work.
    • Fixed.
  • As I get to the end of the section, I must agree with SRX. It is long for my tastes. I think it would be better to keep the focus on the main event matches, and maybe one undercard match. If you want to summarize the remaining feuds in a paragraph, that would be fine too.
  • Event, Preliminary matches: This whole section has the feel of older wrestling FACs. The ones that have passed recently have fewer details about the matches. Reviewers will most likely be expecting that out of new candidates.
    • I'll try to cut that down.
  • "The next match was Queen of the Cage Match..." Should be "was a".
    • It must be a typo.
  • Don't have all capital letters in the references, even if that's how it's presented. If they are that way, just have the first letter of each word capitalized. I don't know why authors would have all caps in any case.
    • Oh that is because I copied the names from the sites instead of writing them. I'll fix that.

Still needs some work, in my view. The most important advice I can give you is to refer to the structure of the most recent wrestling FAs. If something sets a new standard, that is what all subsequent articles in a particular category must shoot for. Best of luck. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, thanks for the comments.--WillC 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried my best with the event section. I see somethings I can remove but I feel that are notable enough to keep. But I removed 880 bytes from the event section. It looks smaller but now all the matches say is what match was next, who was eliminated and who entered. Just simple things really. The best summery I believe I can make.--WillC 03:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

edit

So far I've only read the Background section, so these comments are limited to that.

  • General: the section is overlong, with in my view far too much detail - I just couldn't keep up. My understanding of the function of the section is that it should should prepare us for the main event story by introducing the main characters and outlining the feuds which are being scripted. It seemingly started out well enough, but became increasingly confusing - all these fight details left my head spinning. So please try to shorten and simplify the section. In addition, there ae some specific points needing attention.
    • "kayfabe": this odd word is linked, but the link article is impossible to understand so I still don't know what the term means. Can a simple explanation be inserted in the text?
      • Fixed
    • There's a bracket mix-up in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph. Unsurprising - these multi-bracketed lists are the curse of wrestling articles. This is what you have: "(Tomko [Travis Tomko], A.J. Styles [Allen Jones], Team 3D, [Brother Ray [Mark LoMonaco] and Brother Devon [Devon Hughes]] and James Black])". Apart from the bracket confusion, why the two "ands" at the end of he list?
    • "...the scripted return of Sting". Return from what - are we assumed to know?
      • Fixed
        • What it now says in "...advertising Sting's scripted return to in ring competition". Should this be "in-ring" (with hyphen)? Still no indication of what he was returning from. An earlier retirement? An injury? etc etc
          • I fixed the in-ring and explained in better detail.
    • The rest of the section gave me a bit of a headache; as indicated, I think the section is overlong and overdetailed. One thing I did notice towards the end is the reference to someone's "dad". This is an encyclopedia article, not an informal report, and the introduction of colloquial terms gives the wrong tone. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and come back soon with further comments on the rest of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did a little copyediting to the background. Hopefully it is a little better. Not sure what needed to be removed and what didn't.--WillC 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still with the Background section, I had some difficulty with the chronological sequemce. For example, "Their scripted rivalry began when Tomko turned on Cage..." Clarify when this happened. Also, "Tomko later announced..." When, exactly? And: "His teammates were..." His teammates for what? And shouldn't it be "his teammates would be..."? I'm preparing a few comments on the Event section which I will add later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Some comments on the Event section

  • First sentence should include the event name, not just "pay per view", e.g "...was the first match of Lockdown (2008) to air live on pay per view".
  • Creed-DT is not a helpful link
  • A sentence cannot begin with "Followed by..." Perhaps: "This was followed by..."
  • It is not right to link the whole descriptive phrase rolled him over on his back for the three count. The link belongs on the single term "roll-up" at the sentence’s end. There are other examples of this sort of linking.
    • Anybetter?
  • The word "turnbuckle" is not common English. Most non-wrestling readers won’t know what it means. Therefore link or explain
  • The "Queen of the Cage" paragraph has two extended linked phrases. If these are descriptions of acknowledged wrestling moves, name the move and link on that. At the moment I’ve no idea what the phrases are linking to.
    • Not sure what you're meaning but I made a change or two.
  • The winners of the Cuffed in the Cage match get a future World Tag Team Championship match. Against whom?
  • "Rellick and Reign intimidated him..." Clarify if this was real or play-acting.
  • I think the extended description of the multiple cuffing is unnecessary and could be much reduced, especially as this is apparently a warm-up event.
    • Well would like me to just name who the first was and who the last was? Then in the middle say the order of eliminations went as follows: example, example, etc: or something like that. Well the match was a arm-up but the event is the company's third major ppv. It goes Bound for Glory, Slammiversary, and then Lockdown.

Sorry I can't give any more time to this but I hope my comments are helpful.

They are, thank you very much! I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to read a give ideas for improvement.--WillC 04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRX

edit
Resolved comments from SRX

Sorry for the delay. Lead

  • My main concern is the linking in the lead, like in The other main event took place inside a steel cage with a flat roof that was filled with weapons (Lethal Lockdown match); - you should pipelink up to "roof" and that's it, it makes the lead look messy.
  • The other bout was a standard wrestling elimination match involving six wrestlers, also known as an Xscape match. - same thing here, in addition discourage using "standard wrestling match in the lead and tables (the exceptions). In the lead you can be in-universe, but in the sections you have to break it down and explain things.
  • The other bout was a standard wrestling elimination match involving six wrestlers, also known as an Xscape match. TNA X Division Champion Jay Lethal defeated Consequences Creed, Johnny Devine, Shark Boy, Curry Man, and Sonjay Dutt.[7] - they are the same match, but the way it's written here makes it seem as two different matches.
  • When the event was released on DVD, it reached a peak position of fifth on Billboard's DVD Sales Chart.[8] - would be better stated as "reached a peak position of number five"
  • Another thing, no need to have references in the lead when the statements are in the article.

Will hit you with more, once these are complete, long way to go. --SRX 01:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I look forward to more comments. I hope there aren't many, in a good way. But I'm probably wrong.--WillC 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, As per tradition of Lockdown events, every match was contested inside a sixteen foot high steel cage with six sides, also known as Six Sides of Steel. - at FAC, they will ask you to convert the measurements of the cage so it's best to leave it here as six sides of steel and in the bg explain that it is part of the production (every match being one of those).--SRX 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I move it to the top of the background section.--WillC 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still need to remove the references. Also, sigh, I thought you were going to remove the non important feuds in the background, it is too long. The four most hyped matches should only be added, and knowing TNA they would most likely only hype max 3.SRX 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must have forgot. TNA actually pushed each one of these feuds for a good while. They started the BG/Kip stuff back in December when BG won the Feast or Fired Briefcase. Gail Kim, ODB, and Kong have been having their feud since Final Resolution. Cage vs Tomko started at Against All Odds. Joe/Angle hasn't really quit since Genesis 06. Booker T/Roode started in November. They all had a very good amount of build to them. Each had more build than Punk/Batista or Triple H vs Edge.--WillC 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See you are judging these based on length they have been occurring, wrong. That does not make them notable, the main event matches should be the only ones hyped as the article should only include notable information.--SRX 23:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are breaking a rule then. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details Not having those extra two feuds in there is not making a accurate depiction of the event. You are placing in your own thoughts that those two matches meant nothing and leaving out important information. When a non wrestling fan reads the article and sees that only four matches have the storyline written in but there are eight matches they will wonder what about the other matches. You are leaving out important information see. They had build to them. The company spent time and money to place those matches on the card and to build to them enough that they mean something. If the company worked on them then it makes them important.--WillC 00:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it did, it would have come up in the previous PPV FAC's. Also, keyword in the criteria, major not minor.--SRX 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in a way they are major. The encounter of former tag team partners of a historic tag team. The former knockouts champion and former number one contender against the knockouts champion and her manager. That seems major to me. Just not as major as the other matches.--WillC 00:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To you, see I'm not a fan of TNA and I peer review articles as a non-wrestling reader. You may think that they are major because you are a fan of TNA and you know about it and you want it your way, but listen, those are not major. Major matches is the main event itself, a secondary main event, if there is one, and two important undercard matches. The rest are not major and the event section can just cover that no need for it's buildup. WWE Women's Championship matches are not major, unless it was featured as a major match such as the secondary main event or the final undercard match. This is about the event, remember not the feuds themselves.SRX 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is different. Take it from someone who watched the impacts before and after this event. Who has watched the event at least 6 or 7 times all the way through. Those two matches are important and it makes no sense to only include four matches out of a eight match card. No sense to write 6 matches for WrestleMania and then four for Backlash because WrestleMania is a widely known ppv and the most major ppv in wrestling. It is a double standard. To me the matches are important and I would like to keep them in there and if they are called for by a majority after I plead my case at FAC then I'll remove them. The article is 44 kilobytes long and I can get it to at least 41 without removing feuds. Plus just because it has bothered me. We are talking about two companies. Vince McMahon looks at the Divas as eye candy. TNA's division is different. They aren't the same way with their division. Hardcore matches are a regular in their division. Also to give evidence that WWE's division is different, they had a chance to sign the best woman wrestler in the US. Cheerleader Melissa. They didn't. TNA pushes their division to main event impacts and such. That is why the match is a little more important. It is how the match was showcased. To you the matches are minor. To me they had build. So they are important in my mind to at least be mentioned in the background.--WillC 01:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, you are not getting my point. But at FAC, the FA reviewers will bring the topic up. I also say this because most of the feuds don't go in depth, like a major hyped match would. But you want them so..I will review it tomorrow.--SRX 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can change them so that they are indepth quickly and easily.--WillC 07:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Eight professional wrestling matches were featured on the event's card. These matches were planned with predetermined outcomes by TNA's creative staff and featured wrestlers playing a character for the entertainment of the audience. The buildup to these matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were also planned by TNA's creative staff. this needs to be reformatted as seen in No Way Out (2004).
  • As per tradition of Lockdown events, every match was contested inside a sixteen foot high steel cage with six sides, also known as Six Sides of Steel. - use {{convert}} to convert sixteen feet into meters as well. Also, not a good explanation of a steel cage, try to use the words "metal" and "structure"
  • The main event at Lockdown featured a Six Sides of Steel cage match between Kurt Angle and Samoa Joe (Joe Seanoa), with the two having a storyline rivalry over the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. - hmm, seems confusing. How about The main event at Lockdown featured TNA World Heavyweight Champion (whoever is the champion) defending the title against (the contender) in a Six Sides of Steel cage match.
  • On the March 13 edition of Impact!, Management Director Jim Cornette, an on-screen authority figure portrayed as a match maker and rule enforcer, announced that Angle would defend the belt against Joe at Lockdown. - remember, Impact is a TV Show, so use episode versus edition. Also, what is "Impact!"? Should explain that it is TNA's only TV show. Also, no need for "an on screen authority figured" just "a portrayed match maker and rules enforcer" will suffice. See, if you take my advice above, it will be more clearer as to who the champion is and what the "belt" is.
    • I'll take your advice just do not contradict yourself. You are the one in the first place that said it should be edition and not episode.--WillC 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the March 13 episode of Impact! (TNA's main television program), Management Director Jim Cornette, a portrayed match maker and rules enforcer, announced that Angle would defend the belt against Joe at Lockdown. - 1)You have to avoid using parenthesis when commas should be in place, thus that statement needs to be in commas (yes it looks weird, but it's proper grammar). 2)Replace "main" with "primary" more encyclopedic word.--SRX 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in the show, Joe made a storyline announcement that if he did not win the title at Lockdown, he would quit TNA forever; his statement was later changed to quitting professional wrestling forever. - a storyline announcement does not make sense, how about Joe was scripted to make an announcement in which if he did not win...etc. Also, who changed it to quitting pro wrestling forever? TNA.com?
    • One minute they were saying quitting TNA and then he said quitting pro wrestling on a later edition. I had it in a whole another sentence saying his announcement but I was told it wasn't that important to say when it happen, just that it happened.--WillC 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later in the show, Joe was scripted to make an announcement in which if he did not win at Lockdown, he would quit TNA forever.[6] This statement was later changed to quitting professional wrestling forever on a later episode. - 1)I think there is a repetitive of "later." So I recommend replacing "later in the show" with "during the show." Also, "of Impact!" should go after "later episode" because you are talking about a future event and it seems correct to have that there. I also find the words "forever" unnecessary, quitting is enough to tell that he will not return ever.--SRX 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That night, Angle successfully defended his championship against Kaz (Frank Gerdelman) on Impact! and then announced that he would defeat Joe at Lockdown to prove that he was the best wrestler in the world. - "Later during the program (or show)" is better than "that night" as it does not say where it was. If you take my suggestion, you can remove "on Impact" as the reader would already know it is on Impact. How about "and after the match, announced that he would defeat..etc."
  • Joe did not appear on Impact! for several weeks, as he was reportedly training for his match at Lockdown. - who reported this?

--SRX 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background - you almost got it.

  • As per tradition of Lockdown events, every match was contested inside a 16 feet (4.9 m) high metal steel structure with six sides, also known as Six Sides of Steel.[5] - I don't think there is a need to say "metal steel" structure, either one would do.
    • Fixed.
  • The main event at Lockdown featured TNA World Heavyweight Champion Kurt Angle defending the title against Samoa Joe (Joe Seanoa) in a Six Sides of Steel match. - I was about to say it didn't look right, but you used only Six Sides of Steel, IMO it reads better as Six Sides of Steel cage match, but either will do.--SRX 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WHAT? Sorry but that is the exact same sentence I placed in there you told me to place. You also said just mention Six Sides of Steel after I mention it once. I have that is why I removed the cage part. I placed the cage back in there. Okay.--WillC 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I meant, please revert back to the way it was I said it as an opinion. Plus you begin the section with As per tradition of Lockdown events, every match was contested inside a 16 feet (4.9 m) high steel structure with six sides, also known as Six Sides of Steel. - so you need to be consistent.--SRX 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background Feud #2

  • The other main rivalry heading into Lockdown was between Team Cage and Team Tomko in the annual Lethal Lockdown match. - you don't link or explain what in the hell a Lockdown match is :)
  • On the March 13 episode of Impact!, Cornette announced that Cage and Tomko were the team captains for the match. - first of all, when was the match announced?
  • Their scripted rivalry began when Tomko betrayed Cage at Against All Odds in Cage's World Heavyweight Championship match against Kurt Angle by helping Angle retain the championship. - 1)You need to say somehow that they were alliances before their rivalry. 2)WTF is Against all Odds :)? 3)How about Before they were scripted into a feud, Tomko and Cage were alliances. The feud began at Against All Odds, TNA's (whatever PPV), during Cage's TNA World Heavyweight title match, when Tomko betrayed Cage to help Kurt Angle retain the title. Short simple and to the point.
    • They weren't really alliances. Tomko was in an alliance with Angle but said he was on his own at the time. He did not want to any help. He was just helping Cage every little bit as a friend.--WillC 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Their scripted rivalry began when Tomko betrayed Cage, who was befriending him at the time, at the company's February pay-per-view Against All Odds in Cage's World Heavyweight Championship match against Kurt Angle by helping Angle retain the championship - not best of wording, just avoid saying the name of the PPV, just say " the company's previous pay-per-view." Also, the WHC is TNA's so it should contain the acronym, like the WWE Championship. --SRX 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in the same episode, the match was announced, Tomko said his teammates for the match would be Styles and Team 3D. - same episode of what? Remember you jumped to the PPV. Should explain that Tomko chose his first teammates, who were Style and Team 3D, in it's current format it sounds like Styles and Team 3D are all of his teammates.
    • I just explained the feud real quick. I think people still know it was the March 13 but I'll clear it up. There was only supposed to be four people on a team. It was changed latter.
      • Also on the March 13 episode of Impact!, Tomko choose Styles to be a one of his team members, he choose Team 3D on the March 20 episode of Impact!, which completed his team, since each captain was to have a team of four competitors. - choose? How about On the March 13 and 20 episodes of Impact!, Tomko chose Styles and Team 3D, respectively, as his team members, which completed the three spots remaining on his team. (This avoids starting with Also and is better worded, no offense).--SRX 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Cage announced his partners, they were Rhino and Nash, still leaving one spot left open.[6][11] On the March 20 episode of Impact!, while Team Cage were in a staged brawl with Team Tomko, a promo was shown on the TitanTron, advertising Sting's scripted return to in-ring competition after he had not been seen on television in the company since 2007.[12] The next week, the teams were brawling again when Sting appeared in the ring with a baseball bat. - this can all be merged to avoid these wordy sentences, just get to the point on who Cage announced as his partners. Forget about Sting's promo, irrelevant to the feud.
    • Actually his promo is important. We are talking about someone who had not been in TNA since November on 07. Who returned on the companies first live impact, which people told me to remove. Anyway I have worked on the feud a little bit. How does it look now.--WillC 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the same episodes, March 13 and March 20, Cage announced two of his three partners, one was Rhino (March 13) and the other was Nash (March 20), still leaving one spot left open. - I'm sorry, but this is not great. If you take my suggestion above, you can simply write During those respective episodes, Cage also announced two of his three team members, which were Rhino and Nash.--SRX 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, Sting's promo is still not important, just remove the promo part and in a later sentence add that he returned to the company after not being seen since November 2007, you'll see what I mean later.--SRX 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the match, Storm, in storyline, hit Sting in the back of the head with a beer bottle.[14] On the April 3 episode of Impact!, Cornette's storyline replacement for the night, Matt Morgan, allowed Team Tomko to add a fifth member to its team, which ended up being Storm.[15] Team Cage then added Morgan to even the sides.[16] - see at the SummerSlam FAC, I was told to avoid lengthy explanations like this, get to the point Will, just say that Morgan and Storm were added to each team.--SRX 00:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't just go Storm and Morgan were added later. Do you want me to say this: Team Cage vs Team Tomko was the second top storyline. Cage and Tomko were captains. Their team members were added later over weeks. A steel cage involiving weapons.--WillC 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you take all my comments literally? Listen, you say too much and go to much in depth with the feuds, when you can say it in less words. On the March 20 episode of Impact!, while Team Cage were in a staged brawl with Team Tomko, a promo was shown on the TitanTron, advertising Sting's scripted return to in-ring competition after he had not been seen on television in the company since November of 2007.[12] The next week, the teams were brawling again when Sting appeared in the ring with a baseball bat.[8] Afterwards, a match was made for later that night, in which Sting, Cage, Rhino, and Nash defeated Styles, Tomko, and Team 3D.[13] After the match, Storm, in storyline, hit Sting in the back of the head with a beer bottle.[14] On the April 3 episode of Impact!, Cornette's storyline replacement for the night, Matt Morgan, allowed Team Tomko to add a fifth member to its team, which ended up being Storm; Cage added Morgan later in the program to even the odds. - --->On March (whatever date it is) during an episode of Impact!, Cage announced Sting, who was on a hiatus from company since November 2007, as his final partner. Later that night, both teams were allowed to add one more member to their team, as Storm was added to Tomko's team, while Morgan was added to Cage's team. So much less and still says the same thing. Yes it looks dull, boring, and misses the juicy details, but you have to avoid that per WP:PLOT, you have to treat this like a film as well, you can't reveal everything. I hope you understand.--SRX 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just do. I feel ever since the first peer review when you said it would never make GA it upset me and now you are finding all these problems again when not even FA reviews found this many. Crap the thing has been reviewed by Nici, Nikki, two non WP:PW members, and two FA reviewers. The thing was read by Thinkblue and she said it was well written and made sense. I just do not know why you find all these problems. Saying they were allowed to add two new members. That was never the case. There was no announcement. It was just Morgan saying Storm was added to Team Tomko. No standing in a ring or backstage saying the team can add two more members. Team Cage was never said to be allowed another member. They just said Morgan was on their team. I'm trying to write it the best way I can and go by what happened. I'm home schooled. I never really had to write papers. I just had to take about 80 test a year in each subject.
          • Like I said earlier, people most of the time don't want to help out a lot on PR, but at FAC they will hunt down problems like crazy. I know about this, it has happened before. Just because a few people have reviewed it doesn't matter, the other reason I'm finding all these problems because you wrote this article when we had the old basic OOU format, but now we have a newer one that works better. One comment about the event before I get there, too much play-by-play.--SRX 13:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. How is it too much play by play. Crap I only explained the main points. Who was eliminated, by who, when the next entrance was, and things to me that are notable. Like TNA setting the main event up to look like a MMA fight.--WillC 19:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their scripted rivalry began when Tomko betrayed Cage, who was befriending him at the time, at the company's February pay-per-view in Cage's TNA World Heavyweight Championship match against Kurt Angle by helping Angle retain the championship. - looks so much better, but it reads like a run on, so I recommend replacing by with in which' he helped Angle retain his title.
    • Fixed.
  • Okay, no more reason to argue with you so if you are going to keep this..On the April 3 episode of Impact!, Cornette's storyline replacement for the night, Matt Morgan, allowed Team Tomko to add a fifth member to its team, which ended up being Storm; Cage added Morgan later in the program to even the odds. - at least say that it was because of Storm hitting Sting (if I am correct).SRX 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.

Comments on Feud #3

  • One of the featured matches on the undercard was an intergender tag team match between the team of Booker T (Robert Huffman) and Sharmell (Sharmell Sullivan-Huffman), and the team of Robert Roode and Payton Banks (Bonnie Maxon). - Per WT:PW, remove "on the undercard" or you could just say "on the card"
  • Their staged rivalry began after Booker T made his debut in the promotion at their November pay-per-view event in 2007. - since you already said staged above, no need to say it again here, rivalry will suffice.
  • In the storyline, Roode was unhappy that outsiders were coming to TNA and taking away his chances at becoming a main star in the promotion. - what is an outsider in this case? how about "preventing him from becoming a main event level wrestler in the promotion"?
  • Later, at Final Resolution, Roode accidentally punched Booker T's wife (Sharmell), and fractured her jaw, in storyline. - No need to say "later" Also, would be better as Booker T's wife, Sharmell, and as a result was scripted as having a fractured jaw. (Link to jaw would be nice)
  • Booker T and Roode then competed in two encounters, one at Against All Odds,[9] and the other at Destination X. - hmm, I told you earlier to change Against all odds to (month PPV), reconsider since you state the name here.
  • After their match at Destination X, Sharmell made her return and hit everyone around the ring, including Roode, Banks, Jim Cornette, and the security workers with a leather strap. - hit everyone around the ring? How about, Sharmell returned and attacked Roode, Banks, Cornette, and security workers. (No need for Jim's first name, we already know who he is and irrelevant if they had a leather strap)
  • On the March 20 episode of Impact!, Cornette placed Booker T and Sharmell in a match at Lockdown against Roode and Banks to end their scripted rivalry. - How about Cornette promoted an intergender tag team match for Lockdown, in which Booker T and Sharmell would face Roode and Banks.--SRX 02:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After their match at Destination X, Sharmell returned and attacked Roode, Banks, Cornette, and security workers. - You haven't mentioned Destination X anywhere..The reader won't know what it is.SRX 23:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're doing great!
  • The other main rivalry heading into Lockdown was between Team Cage and Team Tomko in the annual Lethal Lockdown match. - forgot to mention, you need to explain the Lethal Lockdown match here, and then you can just say the match name in the event section, background is where the explanation should go.
  • The other main match on the undercard was the annual X Division Xscape match, which was for the TNA X Division Championship. - same goes here.

SRX 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can't I just explain them in the event. There are alot of rules to them and saying what I said in the lead just wouldn't fit in the background in my mind. You can check the explaination in the event if you want. I feel that would be the better place to explain them.--WillC 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem right since background is the base for the event, it doesn't matter if the explanation is long it's okay, the explanation in the event clutters it.--SRX 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot. I fixed it yesterday. I just forgot to come here and tell you.--WillC 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Feud #4
  • Another main match on the card was the annual X Division Xscape match, which was for the TNA X Division Championship. Jay Lethal (Jamar Shipman) defended the championship against Consequences Creed (Austin Watson), Johnny Devine (John Parsonage), Shark Boy (Dean Roll), Curry Man (Daniel Covell), and Sonjay Dutt (Retesh Bhalla) in this match. -how about saying Another main match on the card was the annual X Division Xscape match, in which TNA X Division champion Jay Lethal (Jamar Shipman) defended the title against Consequences Creed (Austin Watson), Johnny Devine (John Parsonage), Shark Boy (Dean Roll), Curry Man (Daniel Covell), and Sonjay Dutt (Retesh Bhalla) in this match.
  • Each of the challengers fought in qualification matches on Impact! to determine who would participate. - why is the qualification matches linked to professional wrestling#Variations of singles matches?
Comments on Feud #5
  • During the match, two notable things occurred, one being Saeed helping Kong win the championship by distracting Kim and the other being Kim sustaining a storyline injury, which did not allow her to challenge Kong for the championship at the next up coming TNA pay-per-view Against All Odds. - remove "two notable things occurred" that's really distracting. Also, I think it would be best to list the name of the pay-per-view earlier so you can just say Against All Odds versus "TNA's (next) pay-per-view Destination X"
  • As a result, O.D.B. stepped in to challenge Kong for the title. O.D.B. failed in her attempted to win the championship after interference from Kong's manager Saeed. - Stepped in? How about O.D.B challenged Kong for the title, however, she was unable to win the title in a match against Kong on (whenever and wherever it occurred).
  • After Kim returned following Against All Odds, TNA announced that at Destination X, Kim, O.D.B., and Kong would be involved in a match involving three competitors for the TNA Women's Knockout Championship. - 1)Keep in mind the repetition of "Championship" 2)Say Triple-Threat match and then say that it is a standard match involving three competitors so that way in the event section you can just say Triple-Threat match.
  • Kong prevailed at Destination X, pinning O.D.B. after Saeed grabbed O.D.B.'s leg from the outside the ring, which allowed Kong to perform a sit down powerbomb. - irrelevant as to how she won, just say she won, get to the point (remember).
  • This enraged O.D.B. and Kim, as Saeed repeatedly cost them their chances at the championship. Because of this, a tag team match was later announced by TNA for Lockdown pitting the team of Kim and O.D.B. against the team of Kong and Saeed. - how about "Saeed repeatedly interfered in their championship matches. This resulted in a tag team match advertised for Lockdown in which the team of Kim and O.D.B. would face Kong and Saeed."

SRX 00:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Feud
  • Another storyline rivalry heading into Lockdown was the encounter between former Voodoo Kin Mafia partners B.G. James (Brian Gerard James) and Kip James (Monty Sopp). - no need for "storyline"
  • This staged rivalry slowly began to arise in early December, when B.G. won the Feast or Fired World Tag Team Title shot at TNA's December pay-per-view in 2007. - no need for staged, what is "feast or fired"? Just say won a TNA Tag title shot.
    • It was this thing TNA did in December where they had a battle royal where you had to enter the ring, grab one of the briefcases in the fours corners, and get eliminated with the case. It was stupid. One had a World title show, another had a X division title shot, and a tag title shot, while the fourth had a your fired sticker in it. Changed.--WillC 16:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kip, wanting B.G. to choose him to be his partner when he challenged the World Tag Team Champions eagerly begged him to announce who his partner would be when he challenged for the championship. - comma after champions.
  • During the match, Kip attacked B.G., who was at ringside, and Armstrong, in storyline. - should be During the match, Kip was scripted to attack B.G. and Armstrong, who were at ringside.
  • I actually like the way this feud is written :)SRX 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kip, wanting B.G. to choose him to be his partner when he challenged the World Tag Team Champions, eagerly begged him to announce who his partner would be when he challenged for the championship. - eagerly begged is POV, just say "asked"--SRX 16:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First match
  • The Xscape match for the TNA X Division Championship was the first match at Lockdown to air live on pay-per-view. - how about saying, The event began with TNA X Division Champion (whoever) defending the title against (whoever). You need to say the people's name and it is more convenient you write it in this way.
    • I was told earlier in this peer review by one of the FA reviewers that the first line of the event should have the name of the event. Why should I say who defended the title when it was already mentioned?--WillC 03:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that's not correct because it's confusing trying to see who is in the match by scrolling to the BG section, similar as other FACs.--SRX 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added.
  • The beginning was dominated by Lethal and Dutt, as they worked together to try to eliminate all of the other competitors. Dutt, however, was eliminated first in the match, as Devine rolled him over on his back for the three count, a move known as a roll-up. - how about, The match began with Lethal and Dutt working together towards eliminating the other competitors, though, Dutt was eliminated by Devine after he was rolled on his back for a pinfall.
  • Later Creed slammed Shark Boy's head forward to the mat to gain the pinfall. - -->Afterward, Creed slammed Shark Boy's head forward onto the mat and eliminated him by pinfall.
  • This was followed by Curry Man performing a front flip from the top of the cage and driving his back into Creed's chest in a move known as a senton, and then a inverted fireman's carry facebuster, a move also known as the Spice Rack, to gain the three count on Creed. - how about just This followed with Curry Man (the explanation of the move) to execute a Spice Rack (needs to be in italics). Also, an inverted firman's carry is jargon, you need to say something like lifted him and slammed him down to perform a Spice Rack.
    • I feel the senton should be mentioned as well. This was a flip from the top of a 16 foot high steel cage. He could have been killed. I feel it is note worthy.
      • So whaT? During the Elimination Chamber of SS'03, Goldberg speared Jericho through one of the pods, an OMG move, I didn't add it because it's too much plot, especially in these types of matches, where you should only say the eliminations.--SRX 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well we are writing in summary style, lets at least talk a little bit more about the match. We don't have to just go A vs B, A won the world title. Lets put a little bit more flavor. Just a little it will not kill it.--WillC 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curry Man began a fight with Lethal, during which he performed the Spice Rack and attempted a pinfall, but it was broken up by Devine. Devine performed a double underhook piledriver on Curry Man. He then pinned Curry Man to eliminate him from the match. - Eliminate everything up to Devine performed a double underhook piledriver. Just get to the eliminations, like in SummerSlam (2003) for the Elimination Chamber. Also, underhook piledriver is jargon, you need to explain it.
  • With Devine and Lethal as the only two participants left, each man tried to escape from the cage. When Lethal began to escape, Devine held him back. Devine tied Lethal to the top rope with tape before trying to escape from the cage. He was stopped by Dutt, who was holding the cage door shut. Devine attempted to climb out of the cage, while Dutt grabbed a planted knife from underneath the ring and gave it to Lethal to cut the tape. After Lethal was freed, he jumped through the open door, which was held open by his on-screen girlfriend, SoCal Val (Valerie Wyndham) and Dutt, to win the match. By doing so, he retained the TNA X Division Championship. - can all be said in fewer words. --> During the final moments of the match, Devine taped Lethal's hands to the cage to prevent him from escaping, but as Devine tried to escape through the cage door, Dutt prevented him from doing so. Eventually, Lethal freed himself and jumped through the cage door to win the match and retain his TNA X Division Title. Yes, juicy details are gone, but you need to get to the point.--SRX 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second and third match
  • In this match, the participants fight to climb up the cage and into the ring. The first two to do so then have a standard wrestling match. - need to remain in past tense.
  • Why not combine ->The Queen of the Cage Match for the number one contendership to the TNA Women's Knockout Championship followed. and The participants were Roxxi Laveaux (Nicole Raczynski), Angelina Love (Angel Williams), Velvet Sky (Jamie Szantyr), Salinas (Shelly Martinez), Rhaka Khan (Trenesha Biggers), Traci Brooks (Tracy Brookshaw), Christy Hemme, and Jacqueline (Jacqueline Moore).?
  • The two women to enter the cage were Love and Laveaux, respectively. - no need for respectively since we know that only two were allowed and there was no specific order mentioned.
  • The finish saw Love trying to pin Laveaux by rolling her over on her back and sitting on Laveaux's legs in a pinning attempt called a Victory Roll, Laveaux kicked out of the pin attempt and slammed Love into the wall of the steel cage. - how about, The finish saw Love roll Laveaux onto her back in a pin attempt, but Laveaux countered and threw Love into one of the steel cage's walls. (No need to say how she did it with her legs, she just rolled her and attempted to pin her, that's it.
  • With Love dazed, Laveaux pinned her after picking her up and placing her arm behind Love's head and falling to a seated position, in a move Laveaux named "The Voodoo Drop". - Umm, no. -->Laveaux then picked and dropped Love in a seated position to execute The Voodoo Drop (should be in italics). She then pinned Love to earn the opportunity to challenge for the TNA Women's Title (or w/e it's called)
  • The third bout was a Six Sides of Steel match between B.G. James and Kip James, which ended when Kip attempted to knock B.G. backwards against the turnbuckle with a move known as a Stinger Splash. - full stop needed after Kip James. Then continue with a new sentence During the match, Kip attempted to...etc. But another thing, I don't even understand how he tried to knock him backwards against the TB, needs a better explanation.
  • B.G. jumped out of the way. After Kip bounced off the top turnbuckle, B.G. pulled Kip down into a roll-up to gain the three count. - doesn't make sense, if you tell me what you meant above, maybe I can understand and help you reword this.--SRX 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: You shouldn't list the name of the move if you are not going to use it again in the section, you should just list how it is executed.--SRX 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alot of the move expanations were by GaryColemanfan when he did a copyedit. The stinger splash was by him.--WillC 20:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well some of them aren't to shape IMO.
  • During the match, Kip attempted a move known as a Stinger Splash, in which he ran and jumped towards the turnbuckle attempting to crash into B.G., however, B.G. jumped out of the way. - how about, During the match, Kip attempted to run and hit B.G., who was positioned in the ring corner, but B.G. moved out of the way. (no need for name of move since he is not going to use it again or you wont mention it again in the section, unless you use it again in the AM).
  • After Kip bounced off the top turnbuckle, B.G. pinned Kip with a roll-up. - --> As B.G. moved out of the way, Kip hit the corner and B.G. rolled Kip into a roll-up to win the match via pinfall. (I hope roll-up is mentioned earlier)--SRX 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • This will take a long time, possibly a month if it keeps in the pace, I would recommend following the suggestions and changes you made above to the matches and apply it to the rest of the matches and trim them down as much as you can. I will check it again once you are done because of time constraints in real life on my part.--SRX 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is taking a long time. I'll do a copyedit really quick and have it ready by tomorrow. I would like to speed this up aswell so I can have this up for FAC by the end of the week or sometime really soon.--WillC 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm finished with the Event, Aftermath, and Reception. Hopefully we can finished today. Also is there anyway I can get this peer review closed before Saturday?--WillC 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rush this process Will, the only way is for you to nominate it for FAC and then you have to close it, see WP:PR for instructions. I recommend waiting for NWO's FAC to finish so there wont be 2 wrestling FAC's up.SRX 17:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rushing it mainly because in this next week I have alot to do. Around Sunday I have to start the long hall for my school work. I have to be at alot of things for my church next week and plus Monday I have to write the event for BFG IV. I also plan on having all the TNA ppv articles I'm working on done. I'm just trying to speed it up so I can focus on other stuff. I'm not trying to rush you, I'm just trying to figure out how I can close this before a week. I know how to close the review, but can I close it before a week?--WillC 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can close it any time if you nominate it for FAC, see the prose at WP:PR.--SRX 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I haven't read that in so long and I just went and got something to eat. Well the article has went under a copyedit. It is all read for comments. I have a way if you want me to cut the Lethal Lockdown match somemore.--WillC 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lockdown_(2008)/archive2&oldid=1142589971"