Talk:Destination X (2008)/GA1

GA Review
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)

I will begin this review shortly.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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 which you are free to change.
 * Review

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.-- Will C  00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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."-- Will C  00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Also connected was Cage's feud with Styles and Tomko" - Also part of the storyline?
 * Added "in the storyline" to clarify the sentence.-- Will C  00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "participants in the match fought in matches" - repetitious
 * Worked on it to clarify.-- Will C  00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rhino returned from injury attacking Storm during his encounter with Eric Young" - not clear what this means.
 * Worked on it to clarify.-- Will C  00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "fracturing her jaw in storyline" - in the storyline?
 * Fixed-- Will C  00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "which gave Kim an injury in storyline" - in the storyline?
 * Fixed-- Will C  00:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


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

I will put the review on hold.

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

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

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the review and passing the article.-- Will C  02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 1) 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
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Covers all aspects
 * B. Focused:
 * Remains focused on the article subject
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutrally worded
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Very stable
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: