Jump to content

Talk:Destination X (2008)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 13 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Professional wrestling}}, {{WikiProject Virginia}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleDestination X (2008) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Merge

I'm about to write the report for this article. It doesn't need to be merged for that reason alone. I'm going to star working on TNA ppvs. Someone needs to undertake the duty to make TNA ppvs like WWE's. That is why this ppv was made.--WillC 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Destination X (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review shortly.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This is a very complicated article with a great deal of information. Everything checks out for what I can tell. Nicely formatted! I made a few copy edits[1] which you are free to change.

There were a few places where I had questions about the prose:

  • Lede
  • This event marked the second time the Elevation X match was used by TNA. - what does "used by TNA" mean?
    • TNA created the match and this was the second time it was used. A scaffold match is somewhat rare in wrestling but has been done several times. They gave it the Elevation X name.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storylines
  • Aftermath

I will put the review on hold.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead is very much a summary.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    All is in order.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced and accurately reflects the sources
    C. No original research:
    There is no OR
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Covers all aspects
    B. Focused:
    Remains focused on the article subject
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutrally worded
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Very stable
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Public domain images; one fair-use that has the proper rationale
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Nicely illustrated with informative captions properly formatted.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the review and passing the article.--WillC 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]