Talk:Bound for Glory IV/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I'm expecting some issues. It is a pretty long article. I plan to take it to FA after this.-- Will C  18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria 
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * Very good fair use rationale!
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * Very good fair use rationale!
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now. When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.
 * 1) "Bound for Glory IV is remembered for Sting winning the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, Kevin Nash betraying Samoa Joe, and Team 3D forcing Abyss through a flaming table." Something about this sentence feels off, particularly in the use of "remembered", but I can't really put my finger on it. I suggest a rewording, but if you'd rather not it wouldn't be a big deal.
 * I changed it to memorialized. Removed the Nash bit.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I actually think it was better before. I've changed it back. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted back to Remembered then-- Will C  09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually, the entire third paragraph should be reworded to avoid using the passive so much. Things like "35,000 was the reported sales" just feel way too clunky.
 * I'm bad with passive tense. It is not my strong suit. I worked on it a bit to remove some of it. Reworded a sentence of two.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "Early returns for ticket sales revealed that the first two tiers had been sold out with the least expensive seats remaining at the Sears Centre, which had a maximum capacity of 11,000." This sentence isn't very clear, and I'm not exactly sure why it's included. The article talks about early sales but then doesn't talk about final sales later on. Further, I'm not entirely sure why we're talking about the capacity of the Sears Centre, it feels like it's just because we don't have solid numbers. But if we don't have exact numbers, then just leave it vague rather than trying to infer or imply some information.
 * I just removed the second half. Sentence is to show the most expensive seats were sold out.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "the fanfast" what is that? It should be clear in the prose.
 * It is like a comic-con event. That is what they call it. The proper-name for it. Just removed the word.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Particularly to the reception section, every time you quote, you need an inline citation. Even if all the quotes are from the same material and it's cited at the end of the paragraph. Direct quotes are one of the few times inline attribution is required.
 * Never really had a problem with it in the past since the entire paragraph is quoted from one author. I did it, but it increases the reference usage by alot for each one.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, but criterion 2b is rather clear on quotations needing direct attribution. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think this show's rating needs to be compared against every other rating they've gotten. Plus, when ratings are just thrown about, it's not actually very useful. Try and incorporate more prose and limit the number of figures given int he reception section.
 * This is based on uniformity with other articles along with a consensus conducted by the project. Out of my hands.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This may cause some problems at FA but I'm fine with this.
 * Based on Turning Point (2008 wrestling), Money in the Bank (2011), and Lockdown (2008) it should be fine.-- Will C  09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is "insane" a good thing? It's quoted and I'm not sure if it's a good or bad comment. That should be made clear.
 * That would be placing my opinion into the article instead of letting the author's comments speak for themselves. I can't explain someone else's opinion.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is I don't know what the author feels. You can reasonably interpret text. If the article is largely positive, it would be unreasonable to say this isn't a positive statement, for example. And if it's not clear from the article, then it probably shouldn't be quoted. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is taken as is. A man got thrown through a table that was on fire. I think he either means it was an insane sight or that it was insane to even do it. Could be either one. I'm guessing moreso that it was an amazing sight.-- Will C  09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "There was an insane flaming table spot after which Abyss caught fire—I don't get how they usually do those without bad things happening." is the full quote from the article. I think he just means it was cool looking or something. Not sure what I can do here.-- Will C  09:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think including that whole quote instead of just the "insane" part would be better. That way there's context and readers can figure it out themselves. Wugapodes (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I placed in part of the quote.-- Will C  15:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The background of Nash's betrayal is long and largely unnecessary. In an aftermath section, it's talking about events from a year prior to the event. I'd say move the information to the background section or remove it.
 * It wasn't part of the build to the event and played more into the aftermath of the event than prior. It was a year build to the next event so it is all where it needs to be in order to keep accuracy. There is actually alot more to include in that but I removed most of it. There is material from about 6 events and several tv episodes that hasn't been included. That is the basic points.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think you really should try and shorten it or move it. As it stands, the article starts with the build up, describes the event, talks about some matches after wards and then jumps back to a year before the event and in a paragraph gives the buildup, event, and aftermath, and then continues on. That's really confusing and you should really consider other options. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I cut a bit and reworded some stuff in order to keep the point but remove some length.-- Will C  09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) "were furious over how well Steve McMichael performed as the Special Guest Referee" Reading this, I was confused because it seems like they were angry that he did a good job as ref? But apparently it's the opposite.
 * I can see how that can be misinterpreted. It was supposed to mean how well he had performed, like his actual performance. I removed well to explain the point. Now it is just "how Steve McMichael performed"-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Gallery should be removed per WP:GALLERY
 * "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashionfor an example of a good use of galleries." - It is discouraged, but if it adds to the article it is fine. I checked this prior to adding the gallery. It is displayed in a way to add to article in a way that text cannot, with each image captioned appropriately.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the gallery improves the article, but I'm also not 100% sure it's within the the GA criteria so I'm going to let it go. Though this may wind up being contentious at FA. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm expecting this to be an issue. I actually want a long discussion on it. I've got all these images from the event and I can't use them in the article. This way I can so I just thought I'd try it. If at FA they don't approve then I guess I'll remove it. It is an attempt of mine to make this the best article as possible.-- Will C  09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's largely that pictures are for informational purposes rather than decoration. A number of them to me don't seem particularly informative; they don't add information. Some do, and you may want to try and incorporate those, but not all. The general reason for arguments against galleries is that they don't add much information and seem primarily decorative. Wugapodes (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of background could stand a copy edit. The prose doesn't really flow well.
 * Cleaned it up a bit.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The miscellaneous subsection of the event section is probably unnecessary as it's just a paragraph.
 * Consensus from project. It is also included commentary, interviewers, and referees. All important to including all important information.-- Will C  07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS:PARAGRAPHS recommends against subheadings for short paragraphs. Not a GA thing, but probably something to be aware of when you go to FA.
 * The same FAs above have the format so I'm thinking that FAC will approve this one too.-- Will C  09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Results
On hold for 7 days. Very close, and only a few problems to address. Let me know if you have any questions! Wugapodes (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll address these once I have some time. Thank you for the review.-- Will C  18:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any progress? If not I'll probably close the review at the end of the day. Wugapodes (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator hasn't edited in over a week, I'm going to wait until Sunday to close instead to give more time to see this. If he shows up before then, I'd be willing to extend it a few more days. In the mean time, if anyone else wants to help work on things, feel free! Wugapodes (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Shit, I forgot about this. My bad. I'll solve the issues right now. It completely slipped my mind. I apologize -- Will C  06:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , alright I've addressed everything. Sorry about the wait. This slipped my mind entirely. I thought I was still waiting on this review. I've been busy with work and school. Finals is about to occur and I've been focused on 7 classes.-- Will C  07:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's really no problem! Feel free to have a life (or, as much as you can with exams coming up). There's no deadline so I'm usually rather lenient with hold periods. I've revised my review. Non-struck through comments still need more discussion before I can pass it. I think there are only 2 left. Do you think you can address them by Wednesday? Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Issues addressed. I'm sure we'll be done with this before Wednesday.-- Will C  09:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Listed as a WP:Good Article. As I typically do, I recommend you submit this for a peer review or Copy edit before taking it to FA to tighten up the prose and make sure it complies with all the MOS. The standards between GA and FA are rather far apart, but I think this article is close. I already mentioned where I think you'll hit some snags at FA but none of them are particularly big hurdles. Great work so far, and I can't wait to see this at WP:FAC! Wugapodes (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)