Talk:2005 TNA Super X Cup Tournament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2005 TNA Super X Cup Tournament 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
Date Process Result
May 10, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
July 10, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
Current status: Good article


I diagree with this because it is still a tournament that ended on a ppv so it should not be got rid off

It doesn't matter if it ended up on PPV or not. TNA used to have a PPV every week instead of their normal shows, but those shows, like this article, are not notable enough to have an article. iMatthew 2008 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 TNA Super X Cup Tournament/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this on, but please let me know that you're here to respond to queries. I'm leaving a notice on your talk page.--Batard0 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a significant amount of work. I'm going to put it on hold for a couple of days to see if you are ready to respond to queries, but I will otherwise have to fail it (with a relatively brief review) because it doesn't meet GA criteria in its current state. If you're not there to respond and fix things, there's no point in me doing a thorough review on an article I know is going to need a lot of work.--Batard0 (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've been in touch with the nominator, and we'll get this done. It may take slightly longer than usual, however, due to exigent circumstances.--Batard0 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, I'm going through the article and making some small edits for clarity and conciseness. I'm including edit summaries. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of them. I'll then come back and list some points to address and we can go from there. I think this shouldn't take too long to address, given that the citations and footnotes look good.--Batard0 (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, lets cover this one first before Sacrifice.--WillC 05:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm going to start listing a few things in stages as I go along.

Review: What follows are some general comments and suggestions:

  • We say at the end of the first para: "Then-TNA X Division Champion Christopher Daniels called the contest the "Christopher Daniels Invitational"." Looking at the referenced article, the "Christopher Daniels Invitational" comment appears to have been made by Mike Tenay, not Daniels. Is there something I'm missing? I'd also like it if we could say why it was given that name -- because the winner would face Daniels for a shot at the championship, I think.
    • No the reason he called it that was his character. He was the longest reigning champion, he was a bad guy, he was full of himself, etc. He tried to play the tournament off as being in his honor. See below for some more info.--WillC 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Could we put something like "Christopher Daniels called the contest the "Christopher Daniels Invitational" because the winner would face him in a bout for the TNA X Division Championship"? Or is that incorrect?--Batard0 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd think that is OR to really connect the two. It is possibly but just never appeared to be the reasoning. The character was egoistical, so he called it that more because it wanted to make it be about him than trying to find his next opponent.--WillC 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Ok, in that case, we'll just let it be.--Batard0 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You might consider removing the final sentence of the lead. It refers to a review of a match that took place after the Super X Cup Tournament, which is what this article is about. I know, of course, that the championship match was related to the Super X Cup Tournament in that it followed directly from the tournament. It's up to you, really, but I think it might be a good idea to remove it since we discuss the championship match and its outcome earlier in the lead.
    • Done--WillC 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In the Background section, we say a qualification match took place to fill the last spot in the tournament, but we haven't yet named all the other wrestlers who were selected. Could we put in a sentence before that that says "TNA announced that (names of all the wrestlers) would participate in the tournament. A final spot was reserved for the winner of a qualification match between Elix Skipper, Mikey Batts, Shark Boy, and Sonjay Dutt, etc. etc."?
    • Well they didn't announce the participants until after the only qualifying match. It is odd, but that is how the events went.--WillC 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmm...perhaps we could clarify this by saying one qualifying match was held, after which the participants were announced without any further qualifying matches. Do you think that would work?--Batard0 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I just went ahead and reword the statements.--WillC 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Seems fine to me now.--Batard0 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We have the "Christopher Daniels Invitational" thing at the end of the second para of the Tournament section. Where's the evidence that Daniels actually said this?
    • From the source cited: "Christopher Daniels joined Tenay and West for color commentary, reminding viewers that the winner of the "Christopher Daniels Invitational" will face Daniels for the X Division Title."--WillC 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok, as long as it's there. I didn't see it somehow.
        • Yeah, I can show you a video of him saying it if you want. I know we aren't supposed to use Youtube, but just for you to see it. Not gonna use it in the article. I've seen Sacrifice.--WillC 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
          • That's no problem - I believe you. No worries.--Batard0 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • At the end of the Aftermath section, we mention a date (September 9) but don't talk about what year it was. What year was it? I'd suggest putting that in there.
    • Fixed--WillC 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: I think the prose is now in pretty good shape. I've made some edits, though, that I'd like you to look at. Feel free to revert anything you don't like; I haven't made any major changes -- the most significant were moving a couple of sentences around. No actual information has been added or removed, at least to my knowledge. Here's an assessment of where we are with this now:

  • Alright, well I'll read through your comments and the article later today and have this finished by tomorrow night.--WillC 01:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That sounds fine with me. I actually don't think we're all that far off from meeting the criteria once we get these issues sorted out.--Batard0 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry it is taking me a bit to get to this. Busy weekend, didn't find the time. I have a moment to spare at noon today so I'll get to this then. I've been wanting to get this done, just seems to hit at an awkward moment haha--WillC 05:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok -- as I said, I don't think there's too much work left to be done, anyway.--Batard0 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

We're making progress, but there are still a few issues to overcome.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I've identified a few issues that I think should be addressed re: the prose. I've also made some edits for clarity and conciseness that you should review. In general, however, the prose is pretty good. Issues fixed.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Basic MoS compliance is there.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    It contains references to sources, and they're pretty much as good as one can probably get on this subject.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Inline citations are included where necessary.
    C. No original research:
    There's no evidence of OR here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    It covers the major aspects of the topic.
    B. Focused:
    It goes into considerable detail about the event, but I don't think the detail is so deep as to be unnecessary.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    No POV issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    All the images are in commons.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The images are appropriate for the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    It needs a few tweaks to the prose for clarity and conciseness before it meets the GA criteria. We're almost there. Issues fixed.