Talk:Final Resolution (2006)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I really aught to go back and watch some older TNA stuff; I'm a big Waltman fan so this one could be interesting, but Jeff Jarrett has always put me off of it. But that's neither here nor there.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

I think we're really packing the lead with a lot of blue links here; some of them do seem a little excessive—"professional wrestling" is already linked, so I don't know if "mock combat" is worth linking too, and I think you could stand to drop the "No Disqualification" part in the second paragraph which would let you lose the link. It all reads fine, it's just a little overwhelmingly blue.
- I removed the link for mock combat since it isn't exactly needed but I copy my format from article to article so I never really notice. The NO DQ I kept since it is kind of important for that match.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It was announced in early October 2005 that TNA's January PPV would once again be called Final Resolution, until TNA pulled this release from their website" -> try to use the active voice rather the passive where possible; this would read better as "TNA announced in early October 2005 that their January PPV would once again be called Final Resolution, until they pulled this release from their website". Also consider using this first instance of "TNA" in the body to spell out "Total Nonstop Action (TNA)" so you can then continue to use the acronym afterwards.
- Changed to your suggestion. TNA is mentioned in the lead unless you desire it to be repeated.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd still spell it out in the first instance after the lead; the body and the lead are really two separate entities when it comes to things like acronyms and linking. GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done--WillC 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The NWA World Tag Team Championship was defended in a bout against Team 3D (Brother Devon and Brother Ray) by then-champions America's Most Wanted (Chris Harris and James Storm; AMW) at the event." -> Again, we could switch to an active description here, with the wording that AMW defended it, not that it was defended by AMW.
Changed to suggestion.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a segment where they buried Team 3D's careers" -> "Burial" is a pretty jargon term, I would either explain it with a piped link or reword it ("deliberately underplayed Team 3D's careers"?)
They actually held a funeral. It wasn't about jargon, they literally held a segment in a funeral home with a casket and everything. It is quite entertaining actually. Here it is.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't catch YouTube at work, is that the same funeral place they held the service for Aces and Eights? But yeah I'd clarify that it was a mock funeral then since there's the possibility of confusion with the industry term "buried". GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"NWA Championship Committee member Larry Zybysko" -> Maybe this is me reading this being smart to the industry but I see "NWA Championship Committee" and think "booker", not "on-screen authority figure", would this mayber stand to be paraphrased instead of being used as a title?
That was actually his official title from what I can tell. TNA was in the NWA at one point but by 2005 they weren't really NWA-TNA anymore, just TNA. But they kept the idea that the NWA had control over title because of the titles. So they had this committee that no one ever saw with random veteran stars showing up saying they were on it and thus became the authority figure for a while. I could change it to authority figure if need be.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably just nit-picking, leave it as is. GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps I just haven't seen the relevant MOS; but should things like "Six Man Tag Team" be in title case?~~
Alot just use the name as nothing more than just a match. I see the match as an actual title like Last Man Standing because it is a specialty match. It is just extremely common now that no one notices it. I'm trying to refer to it as such by making it capital.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"trying to bash Styles" -> "bash" is quite colloquial, try "attack" or even "hit".~~
Done--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"through a table off of a ladder " -> I'd recommend swapping these around, "off of a ladder and through a table"~~
Done--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"smack him in the back of the head" -> as above, "smack" is quite informal~~
Done--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Team Canada then attacked 3D and in the process knocking out Ray with a hockey stick." -> either replace the "and" with a comma or change "knocking" to "knocked".~~
Done--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"his trademarked Scorpion Death Drop" -> I wouldn't use "trademarked, as it implies a legal ownership, rather than it being a signature or hallmark action; even just dropping the "ed" would be okay here.
Done--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A total of 900 people attended Final Resolution" -> This doesn't need changed, it's just a bummer. :(
The Impact Zone is a soundstage at universal studios. I think WCW used to use it as well at one point. It can only hold 900 people. At one point it held 700 then it got renovated and seated 900, finally updated again to hold 1200. It is all TNA can hold in the room, well at the time it was. TNA's first event outside of the Impact Zone held a couple thousand. I think their largest attendance was in Wales with 8000 for a house show.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is that the one they used to tape Thunder in where they'd bus in tourists and use the "cheer" and "boo" signs? GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, sounds like the same situation. Not sure if it is the same building or not. It is basically a ride people can go to for free. I'm not sure but I think it wasn't just Thunder that taped there but Nitro a few times, etc.--WillC 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Compared to rival World Wrestling Entertainment's (WWE) Royal Rumble PPV event," -> Drop a note about these being roughly contemporaneous in the year to explain the comparison~~
Done, I used to add the date of the show, must have forgot this time.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The highest rating given by Kapur went to the TNA X Division Championship bout, with an 8.5 out of 10." -> The previous paragraph discusses rating events, and this one moves to discussing individual match ratings without this actually being made clear. Try "The highest rating given by Kapur to an individual match went to the TNA X Division Championship bout, with an 8.5 out of 10."
Done--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"too short of a match for the featured X Division match" -> Drop the second "match".~~
Done--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The tail end of "Aftermath" has a few very short paragraphs that could be merged together.~~
Combined with introductory sentence--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "see also" links are already linked to in the article, and so shouldn't be used as a "see also" section.
Kind of a standard thing done since it is more of a reference section. I could remove it but it wouldn't be consistent with the hundreds of other PPVs.--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is to be avoided, but doesn't seem to be expressively forbidden, per WP:ALSO ("As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes"). If it's more effort to remove old ones for consistency than it is to keep them out going forward then I wouldn't worry too much about it. GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
I have no problem with the citations used, they're put together well and nothing is left to OR.

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
There's a good mix of before, during and after for this event, which does a good job of explaining its contents and its context.

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Seems neutral, nothing used subjectively without being the express opinion of a cited source, none of which are used unduly.

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Very new but seems perfectly stable in that time.

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are used well and are accompanied by alt text. My only quibble is that the Sting image should probably note that it was taken about a decade later and during his run with another company, so as not to suggest it is representative of Sting in TNA in 2006.
I could change it to an image of him in TNA if needed, I just used that one because it was fresh, looked good, and I hadn't used it before. Not much difference between him in 2006 and him now honestly.--WillC 05:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just change the "Sting (pictured)" to "Sting (pictured in 2015)" or something similar. I think it's just the coat that would warrant it as it's a new look for him—for example, I would recommend the same kind of clarification if it was a picture of his surfer look, or Crow Sting in a Jim Crockett-era article. GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done--WillC 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not a huge amount of work to be done here, so a seven-day hold to address concerns should be plenty. Feel free to let me know if you want to challenge any suggestions as well. GRAPPLE ^X 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: I've addressed your concerns. Thank you for the review. You seem familiar, have you reviewed another article I've written?--WillC 05:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wrestlinglover: I know I've reviewed some wrestling articles at FLC, have you had anything there? GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: Dozens actually, maybe one you recognize.--WillC 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wrestlinglover: Turning Point (2008)'s last FAC, apparently. And I'm happy with the changes made here; article has been passed for GA> GRAPPLE ^X 08:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: Thank you for the review and the pass. Aww yes, Turning Point. It and Lockdown were so annoying trying to get to FA.--WillC 18:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]