Talk:Destination X (2008)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Destination X (2008) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Destination 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
Date	Process	Result
December 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Professional wrestling Low‑importance

	Destination X (2008) is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

"with the two scheduled to face for the title at TNA's next PPV event Lockdown on April 13, 2008." - is "scheduled to face for the title" correct?
- Yeah, but changed it to "fight for the title."--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Also connected was Cage's feud with Styles and Tomko" - Also part of the storyline?
- Added "in the storyline" to clarify the sentence.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"participants in the match fought in matches" - repetitious
- Worked on it to clarify.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rhino returned from injury attacking Storm during his encounter with Eric Young" - not clear what this means.
- Worked on it to clarify.--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"fracturing her jaw in storyline" - in the storyline?
- Fixed--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"which gave Kim an injury in storyline" - in the storyline?
- Fixed--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"They got their championship match on the April 17 episode of Impact!" - doesn't sound right with "got".
- Fixed--WillC 00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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

B. Focused:
Remains focused on the article subject
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrally worded
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Very stable
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.
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]