Talk:Lockdown (2008)/GA1

GA Review

Lead

• Remove "the American promotion"
• "As per tradition" --> "As per tradition of Lockdown events"
• "The main event was" --> "The main event was between"
• "Team Cage won the match when" --> "Team Cage won the match after"
• "after performing" --> "after delivering"
• "featured Booker T and Sharmell against Robert Roode and Payton Banks" --> "featured the tag team encounter between the team of Booker T and Sharmell and the team of Robert Roode and Payton Banks"
• "won by pinfall, when Sharmell pinned Banks with a roll-up" --> "won by pinfall after Sharmell pinned Banks"
• "with the exception of Joe and Angle." --> with the exception of the feud between Joe and Angle."
• "Their feud continued, but with the addition of Scott Steiner. They were all involved in a 3-Way Dance at Sacrifice." --> "Scott Steiner became a part of the feud, and the three were involved in a 3-Way Dance at Sacrifice."
• "It was changed at the event to Joe versus Steiner versus Kaz, because of Angle sustaining a legitimate injury in Korea." --> "Kaz replaced Angle in the match though, due to a legit injury that Angle sustained in Korea."
• Wiki-link "Muscle buster" and change "on" --> "onto"
• "get the pin." --> "score the pinfall."
• "They competed" --> "Rhino and Cage competed"
• "vacant TNA World Tag Team Championship", unlink "TNA World Tag Team Championship"
• "Cage and Rhino were" --> "They were"

Background

• Combine the first two paragraphs about the same feud.
  • What do you mean? They are together.--WillC 17:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• "with the two battling" --> "with the two feuding"
• "March 13 episode of" --> "March 13 edition of"
• "that at Lockdown Angle" --> "that at Lockdown, Angle"
• "the same episode of" -->"the same edition of"
• "Going into Lockdown, the secondary feud" --> "The secondary feud heading into Lockdown,"
• was between the two teams competing" --> "was between Team Cage (A, B, C, D) and Team Tomko (A, B, C, D)
• "The team captains announced by Jim Cornette on the March 13 episode of Impact! were Tomko and Christian Cage, following the announcement of Angle versus Joe." --> On the March 13 edition of Impact!, Jim Cornette announced that Cage and Tomko would be named team captains at Lockdown"
• "Tomko decided that his teammates" --> "Tomko announced that his teammates"
• "after 3D helped Tomko and Styles" --> "after Team 3D helped Tomko and Styles"
• "Cage picked Rhino and Kevin Nash as his teammates after Cage saved Rhino from a attack by Team Tomko and Nash befriended Cage." -- "Cage chose Rhino and Kevin Nash as his teammates after Cage saved Rhino from an attack by Team Tomko and Nash befriended Cage."
• "On the March 20 episode" --> "On the March 20 edition"
• Wiki-link "beer"
• On the April 3 episode" --> "On the April 3 edition"
• "Cornette's stand in for the night" --> "Cornette's replacement for the night"
• "The primary match on the undercard was between Booker T and Sharmell, and Robert Roode and Payton Banks" --" The primary feud on the undercard was between the team of Booker T and Sharmell, and the team of Robert Roode and Payton Banks"
• reword or remove "pushed him further down the ladder of success"
  • It might work what I placed not sure.--WillC 17:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Booker T and Roode then fought" --> "Booker T and Roode then competed in a match at both"
• On the March 20 episode of Impact!" --> "On the March 20 edition of Impact!""
• Wiki-link "Women's division" to TNA Knockout
• "which followed Saeed grabbing" --> "which was followed by Saeed grabbing"
• "This resulted in the women's tag team match being made for Lockdown" --> "A tag team match was then made between the team of Kim and O.D.B. and the team of Kong and Saeed"
• "Kip was angry" --> "Kip was displeased"
• "Later, a match was made for Lockdown." --> Later, a match was made between Kip and B.G. for Lockdown"
• "Champion Jay Lethal defended the X Division Championship against Johnny Devine, Sonjay Dutt, Curry Man, Shark Boy, and Consequences Creed." --> ""
• Consistency needs to be kept in the last paragraph when mention the date of the match.
• Split these sentences "The fourth and fifth matches occurred on the April 3 and April 10 editions of Impact!.[36][37] The matches were Shark Boy versus Elix Skipper and Creed, who was debuting, versus Jimmy Rave. Shark Boy won the first bout by pinning Skipper following a Chummer. Creed won the second after performing a Creed-DT." to have one sentence talk about the fourth match, and one sentence about the fifth.

Event

• Isn't is Curry Man, and not Curry man?
• "as they tagged together " --> but this was not a tag match...re-word
• Remove "After Lethal entered the ring, the match officially began."
• top rope of the cage...the cage has ropes?
• "Later Curry man" --> "Later, Curry Man"

More will come later, but to save me some work, please have somebody copy-edit the event section. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know how much good it will do. I've already had it copyedited three times, but I'll go ask someone.--WillC 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tasks

Alright, so I am going away this Thursday (8-07-08) and coming back the following Wednesday (8-13-08). That gives you a few days plus a week to complete these requests, as I will return to the review when I return. In the mean time, complete these tasks:

Okay, have fun on your break.--WillC 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Per new consensus,

• Remove the background/aftermath from the lead completely.
• The first paragraph of the lead should be general information about the event and should explain professional wrestling.
  • Done.--WillC 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• The second paragraph should describe the main event matches and featured undercard matches
  • Done.--WillC 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• The third paragraph should describe the event's reception.
  • TNA isn't a publicly traded company so I can't give ppv buys or how much money they made off of the event because they don't have to release that information. Also Lethal Lockdown and Six Sides of Steel are used every year so it makes no sense to say that it was the fourth time it was used because it is a given.--WillC 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For examples, see The Great American Bash (2005), SummerSlam (2003), and SummerSlam (1988).

• In the event section, split the section into "Preliminary matches" (The undercard matches) and "Main event matches" (The main event matches and the featured undercard matches).
  • Done.--WillC 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Give the article a complete copyedit, and ask other editors to copyedit for you (a new pair of eyes is always good)
  • Done, I've asked two and neither have gave me a copyedit yet. I've almost done everything I know to the event. I'll do more when I take it out of universe.
• Add a reception section to the aftermath. (See the PPV's mentioned above)
  • Wrote, I wrote it a few weeks ago but SRX told me to wait to put it in so that is finished. It is in my sandbox.--WillC 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Per WP:OVERLINK, once a wiki-link is added in the background, it should not be linked for the rest of the article.
  • Done.--WillC 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Remove all wrestling jargon: if you need help with this, ask any editor at WP:PW. Maybe ask User:SRX as I know he is good at removing jargon.
• If you know how, clean-up the references, by checking the publishers, dates, authors, access dates, titles, and url's. If you don't know how, ask somebody for assistance.
  • Done, I just placed them in a few weeks ago. I don't believe the urls have changed that quick. Well I've added the writer's names. I keep forgetting to add those everytime I write a reference. Now the PWWEW references don't work. The urls are right from the articles but everytime I click on them after I write them they go to their results pages for PPV and TV shows.--WillC 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When I come back, I will review your work. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, well have fun.--WillC 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a difficult time finding time to review the article, so I will most likely request a second opinion at WP:GAN. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay.--WillC 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review - second opinion

This is clearly a much-loved article, and represents a lot of hard work. It is comprehensive and sensibly laid out but I don't believe it meets GA standards.

• Criterion 1 - there is still quite a lot of tidying up of the writing to do. Look at my recent edits for examples of several common problems - incorrect use of 'when', and very long sentences that go off at a tangent in their middle sections. Probably best to get someone who's good at copyediting and knows nothing about the topic to go through the article.

I've had three copyedits, they've left everything you've said alone. The new explaining terms I know nothing about. The project just decided to explain everything and I can't get no one to work on it.--WillC 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Criterion 2 - The referencing does not meet the GA standard. Taking the last para of the 'Background' section only as an example, the following are not covered by the references given:

• "Kip was displeased that B.G. teamed with his father,"
• "a Tornado-Plex on B.G. allowed Styles and Tomko to gain the pinfall"
• "The Tornado-Plex is a move in which one wrestler has the opponent's legs on his or her shoulders and is facing the first wrestler, while the second wrestler performs a neckbreaker on their opponent."
• "A rematch took place on Impact!, however, B.G. was injured so Kip took his place in the match"
• "During the match, Kip attacked B.G. and Armstrong, in storyline"
• " In the weeks leading up to the event, TNA aired special video packages entitled "Rough Cut", which were about Kip and B.G.'s friendship and history together as a tag team." This is ref'd, but the source does not say that the segment was about their friendship and history together.

The Rough Cut might be available. Mainly you have to see Impact to know he was upset. Why else would a match be made between the two and he attacking them. Though the references should tell about the Tornado-Plex and Kip attacking B.G. and his dad, however it won't tell what a tornadoplex is. The link does though. I'm sorry, I had the references in the wrong places. I didn't notice that until now. Thanks for noticing.--WillC 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for a citation after every sentence, but the citations given support nothing other than the bare results of some of the matches. The rest appears to be original research from the writers of the article. Can you find other sources to support the content here? Are the regular Impact! shows available to reference?

I watched everyone of the shows, as well as the ppv three times. The refs should say what move they used. TNA removes their results pages after a few weeks. They are no longer there. TNA does place clips of their TV show on their Youtube page, but I'm not sure which ones are on there.--WillC 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if this problem exists throughout the article, not just in this one para I've used as an example.

• Criterion 3c - I have my doubts about 'staying focussed on the topic'. There is a huge amount of detail here about the storylines leading up to the event, in particular in what moves were used by whom to win their matches. This feels like an attempt to create a plot summary of the whole event and related storylines. I'd recommend cutting the length of the 'Background' section by at least a half.

Happy to discuss any of this. 4u1e (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you like me to cut it down, remove a few sentences? Reword a few of them?--WillC 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd cut about half of them out completely. However, I'm not familiar with the standards of WP:PW, so perhaps I'm on the wrong track. Can we get someone who is familiar with the Wikiproject to give us a view on whether this level of detail is correct? It seems massively excessive to me. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been having a look at the WP:PW style guide, which suggests that the three or four main feuds should be desribed in the background section. The article currently describes six storyline feuds - I suggest that the Kip/BG, Kim/O.D.B. and Saeed/Kong and Booker T/Roode rivalries could perhaps be cut from the background section. Again though, I don't kow much about this stuff. Which rivalries are the most important? 4u1e (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The style guide is really only guidelines from what members have written and what has been discussed at WT:PW. My personal opinion would be to remove the Kip/BG storyline and the Booker T/Roode storyline. I think the Background section is OK, as it covers the rivalries adequatly (sp?). I think the Background section looks quite big, as some of the moves and match types are explained, which is a good thing for out-of-universe writing styles. The only two parts I would consider shortening is the "Cuffed in the Cage match" section and the Cage/Tomko match description. D.M.N. (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would actually like to keep those feuds in there. They each had a good amount of time added to them and were long lasting feuds. Kim/Kong were fighting since the begining of the year. Roode/Booker T were fighting since the begininng of the new year. Also the last time I checked it said I could have more than 4 matches if I wished. I can cut them down the best way I can. But if it is possible I would like to keep them in the article.--WillC 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've cut the section for the Xscape match by half. The two smaller matches by 1/3. The second main match by a 1/4, maybe. The main match by a small amount. I've removed over 2,000 letters. Hopefully the background is smaller. I hope it is good enough that I don't have to remove any matches because I feel people wouldn't understand what the other matches were about. Also I'll start cutting down the Event section tomorrow. I have to get up to go and work on a friends farm in the morning so I have to get to bed.--WillC 06:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see you been working at it. I'm going to have to step out the debate on what should be cut. Please take the advice of your fellow WP:PW editors on that. What I can tell you is that as a novice to this topic, the article is overloaded with detail. The removal of in-depth descriptions of what every move means helps in this respect, although I note D.M.N's point that they may be needed to make the article clear for non-wrestling fans

My best advice at this point is to let me fail the GA nom - I just don't think it's there: I think a lot more work is needed on the writing, some of your recent additions will also need copyediting, and it will take a while to sort the article out. I'd suggest getting a peer review to really work out what content is needed in the article, and then to get an experienced copyeditor to work on it. Try the list at WP:PRV for some volunteers. I'm happy to help as well, but I don't have the time this week to work on the article. Are you content with this? 4u1e (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, but I would rather it not be failed since I've been working on it since June and it has taken me alot of time to get here and I would like to get it done now. Plus peer reviews in WP:PW don't work for TNA articles. I had this up for a peer review and got one opinion while WWE stuff gets around 5 or more. Plus I placed Sacrifice (2008) up and it got one as well for more than a week. How about I place a section up at WT:PW and get more users from the project involved?--WillC 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great suggestion - I know the feeling of not being able to get much feedback! Thing is it may take a while, and this has been on hold already for around three weeks. Failing GA is a perfectly normal step on the route to achieving greatness, so don't worry! 4u1e (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody just did a copyedit on it, so it may be a little different since he removed the real names and alot of other stuff.--WillC 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I tried to post an explanation of my edits here, but there must have ben an edit conflict. I removed the real names that were already included in the lead section, as I didn't feel they need to be repeated in the background section. I have copyedited the article (without removing any feuds from the background section) and have trimmed 7,000 bytes while keeping almost all of the information. If more trimming is needed, please respond here with specific paragraphs that need work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, you helped me alot. I've copyedit it 40 times. To a point I didn't know what was good and what was bad. I'm surprised at how much could be removed. This helps me with cutting down sacrifice now that I have something to copy off of.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since neither reviewer has returned in 10 days, I am going to request that a new review be performed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for disappearing. In my defence I would say that I had thought the purpose of a second opinion was just that! I didn't expect to be taking over responsibility for the review from iMatthew. I've also had a hellaciously busy couple of weeks both at work and doing various essential work round the house, so just haven't been on WP that much.

Anyway. I'm still busy, so don't have time to take over the full review for this. I will note though that in my opinion, the writing is much improved (well done!), so perhaps the next reviewer can focus on something else! I haven't checked the referencing. Cheers and keep up the good work. 4u1e (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review - third opinion by User:Royalbroil

I have worked with 4u1e a lot, and he's been extremely busy off-Wiki. I couldn't get him to peer review an article for me.

Comments:

1) Images: Fair use rationale present on poster and DVD images. Booker T image should get a basic description on Commons. The Jay Lethal image doesn't actually state that the uploader took the picture so I'm not sure if it's legit or not. Please contact the uploader and ask them to add a statement to the image. Christian Cage needs to be reviewed for categories on Commons. Samoa Joe image has both no description and a statement about who took the picture. Scott Steiner's image has an unknown problem with a different size on English Wikipedia vs. Commons, so I've ask an admin there for help.

2) Referencing: Bunch up the references when possible. At this writing, references #56 & 57 are for the same source in every respect. They should be given a name and that name referenced multiple times. A single reference should only appear once. For example, in the first case you would use <ref name="A">...</ref>, and in the second (and subsequent) case you just need to add <ref name="A" />. All citations to that reference just use the same name, like "A" in my example. Struck out, looks like it was an isolated incident to fix.

3) Prose issues:

• "as he was supposedly training for his match at Lockdown" - supposedly doesn't sound encyclopedic, how about "reportedly".

Comparison to GA criteria:

1. Well Written: Yes
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes. Sources appear to be relatively reliable.
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes
4. Neutral: Yes, good job explaining while staying out of universe
5. Stable: Definitely
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Image tagging issues need to be addressed.

That's it - it needs some minor adjustments before it passes GA criteria. Royalbroil 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, actually 56 and 57 are two different weeks. One is for July 19 and the other is for July 12. Now as for the pictures above. That may take me a while since I've never worked on commons and I don't work on pictures. I just upload DVD images and posters. Also thank you for undertaking the review. I'll fix these within a few. I'm working on it as I speak.--WillC 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the uploader of the Jay Lethal and Samoa Joe pictures. He's well known for uploading great wrestling pictures, so I have no doubt that they're legitimate. I've asked him to provide descriptions and a statement that he took each of the pictures. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything is done besides the Steiner picture problem and Mshake3 fixing the Joe and Lethal pictures.--WillC 05:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I also added to the titles of references 56 and 57 to make it clear that they are different pages. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Steiner picture is fixed.--WillC 07:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am satisified with the referencing, prose, as well as the progress on the images. An optional but highly recommended step is to transfer all of the images to Commons so that all of the Wikipedia projects can share them. Royalbroil 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well all the images besides the Lethal and Joe pictures are from Commons. I'll see if I can get the uploader to transfer them there.--WillC 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can upload any image from the English Wikipedia to Commons (as long as it's free use and not fair use like the poster and DVD images). At Commons, you hit upload, and then you say you want to upload it from the English Wikipedia. Make sure you select the option to have a bot do the uploading for you. I think it's real easy, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to do it. Royalbroil 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've transferred them over to there. Now Mshake3 just has to fix his end and I guess that will be all.--WillC 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Mshake3 has fixed his end in a way. The Joe picture isn't his. He just uploaded it from commons. Okay, is there anything else you would like fixed.--WillC 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mshake3 only addressed one of the images. I asked Mshake to do the same thing for the Joe image. If Mshake didn't take the image, then he/she shouldn't have uploaded the image. If there's something wrong like that with the image, you can always remove it from the article. It's the only thing holding up the article from passing GA. Royalbroil 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this image work Image:Samoa Joe Sign.jpg?--WillC 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget about that image. I'm just going to remove the Joe picture and replace it with the Angle picture in the background. Then move the Cage picture down to near its spot.--WillC 02:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done, what do you think?--WillC 02:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, so I listed it as a good article. Thanks for all of your patience with having to go through three reviewers. Your hard work has paid off! Royalbroil 04:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No!!! thank you for reviewing it!!!!!!! I'm just gald it is a GA. Now I can take it to FAC. I was only planing on taking it to GA but since I've worked on it alot and two editors outside of WP:PW think it is well written I'm taking it there after a peer review and a few changes. Good day and thank you very much for taking the time to review it.--WillC 04:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)