Talk:Lockdown (2005)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MuZemike (talk · contribs) 23:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has quite a few prose issues.
 * Prose issues


 * Remove some of the passive voice (which I started), such as "it was announced that..."
 * "Jeff Hardy versus Raven in a Six Sides of Steel Tables match was also featured on the card. Hardy ended up winning the contest." --> Not only the passive voice, but I think that could be combined into one sentence.
 * Not sure exactly why it should be removed. The event was held in the past and it wrote in a way as to seem neutral in tone and context.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Understanding that in some cases it may be too difficult to switch to active voice, it is normally good grammar style to try and use active voice and keeping passive to a minimum. Moreover, it may also make some sentences more concise. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, merged sentences and tried to remove some of the passive tones.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there still an issue here?-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * MOS:NBSP; non-breaking spaces need to be placed between the month and date so that word wrap doesn't get in the reader's way.
 * Never had to do that before. I'll get the code and include it.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline is fairly easy to follow; just add the  where appropriate. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, did it yesterday.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "The main event was for a NWA World Heavyweight Championship match..." - There is only one match? It seems like "the" should be in there instead, unless I am missing something.
 * The main event determined who fought Jarrett at Hard Justice. So the match was for another match in which the title would be on the line.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. –MuZemike 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Verb tense, such as:
 * "This event marks the introduction of the Lethal Lockdown and Xscape matches..."
 * What exactly is the problem here? The match were introduced at the event. I believe all tense are correct, at least that is what it seems to me.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it occurred in the past, then shouldn't that first verb be "marked", not to mention be consistent with the later past tense verb of "became" later in the sentence? –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you are supposed to place a comma after the year when it is followed by a nonessential phrase or clause, such as "which took place on April 24, 2005, at the TNA Impact! Zone in Orlando, Florida."
 * Its a straight line sentence. I don't see the point of the break. The point its trying to get across is it was "held on April 24, 2005 at the TNA Impact! Zone in Orlando, Florida." Its done the sameway in the hundreds of other wrestling PPV articles.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still common usage to include one after the year in the example above. Just because other articles may not follow it doesn't make this an exception when it is pointed out. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't got a problem with doing it I'm just confused. When I see a comma its a place for a stop for me in a sentence. There isn't a need for a stop in the sentence. "which took place on April 24, 2005 at the TNA Impact! Zone in Orlando, Florida." is how it should sound, but with a comma it comes off as "which took place on April 24, 2005......at the TNA Impact! Zone in Orlando, Florida." The only reason I mention others is it was the agreed format to use. Not sure why this is just coming up now. I just wanna understand why incase an issue ever comes up over it.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there still an issue here?-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of the grammar guidebooks recommend setting the year off with commas but for another reason that I was unaware of, which is because those who follow that rule regard the year as an appositive or parenthetical, necessitating the need for a comma. I'll make the change, but it's not a terribly big deal anyways. –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * TNA issued a press release on January 24, 2005 announcing that they were planning..." --> I already mentioned the comma thing above, but then the word "announcing" is poor usage. How about "TNA announced in a January 24, 2005 press release..."?
 * Yeah that could work.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:PLUSING - Fix the instances of "noun plus -ing" in the article; there are several of them.
 * Mind pointing out a few?-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at my last copyedit, you can see some examples of how to correct them (if that helps any). I went through a few of them there, but there are still some others I left to fix. –MuZemike 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look, but I've never had this type of issue before. After almost 60 articles, this is the first mention. I'll read through and fix what seems to be wrong.-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through and got the remaining few for you. –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Before all matches were announced to be held inside the Six Sides of Steel, TNA advertised..." --> passive voice again (how about "Before TNA announced..."?). The proceeding sentence is the same thing.
 * I don't see the point then, the point of the sentence is lost. Its about what TNA previously advertised before they made the switch.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This may be a better suggestion: Before the announcement that all matches be held inside the Six Sides of Steel, TNA advertised... –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "On the April 8 episode of Impact!, Rhodes announced..." --> Fairly long-winded sentence. I'd break it down a bit and try to make a little more sense.
 * Any suggestions?-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Split-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "while he made a speech" --> He made a speech? Use another verb there.
 * Just removed it and switched it.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems that times of matches sound better if written in numbers instead of spelled out; it's odd to read "thirty-four seconds" as opposed to "34 seconds".
 * I tried that out as a new format. I'm the only editor who actually uses the times in the event section. I thought writing them out made it look a bit more professional. I'll switch them over, I just thought I'd give it a shot.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't seem as good as using numerals in my view, especially when you start getting into hyphenated numbers. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mention "Director of Authority Dusty Rhodes" once at the beginning of the article body and then mention all others as "Rhodes", expect to differentiate between Dusty and his son Dustin.
 * Yep, I do that besides in new sections. Then I refresh the names, etc.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant was to mention it the one time in the "Background" subsection and then just simply say "Dusty Rhodes" afterwards; readers should pick up at the beginning that he's the Director of Authority of TNA. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, switched it to DOA.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "This was explained at the start of the telecast as well as that Director of Authority Dusty Rhodes would announce Nash's replacement later during the event." --> The "as well as that" is not making the connection with the stuff before and after that. Please reword that.
 * I agree, been thinking of how to change it. I got burnt out on the article and I couldn't think of what to change it to. Used a semi-colon, hopefully should help.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is issue fixed here?-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made one small tweak there, as you had an incomplete statement after the semicolon. Let me know if I changed the meaning of the sentence. –MuZemike 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "This was originally promoted as a bout between Hoyt and Apolo, but was changed at the event." --> There should be no comma there. (Alternatively, the word "it" can be added between "but" and "was".)
 * Usually a comma comes before the word "but" doesn't it? Maybe its force of habit, just seems like one would be needed here?-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You use a comma before a coordinating conjunction (i.e. and, but, or) to separate two independent clauses – clauses that can stand alone as independent sentences. ...was changed at the event is not an independent clause (as it's not a complete sentence), so, as the sentence currently is, you cannot use a comma there. However, as I noted, if you add "it" between the conjunction "but" and the verb "was", you'll have an independent clause in which the comma is appropriate. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Siaki and Apolo were the victors of the contest..." --> How about "won"?
 * To offset the other match results. There is a limit to phrases, and saying they won gets repetitive.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I only see "won" mentioned once in the article's body (though three times in the lead). I don't think repetition will be much a problem as opposed to conciseness. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "This allowed D'Amore to open the cage door..." --> Ouch! That sentence needs to be rewritten that it simply drones on and is rather poorly written.
 * I agree, its a run-on.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is OK. However, the following sentence: Roode followed by attempting to bash Dustin with it, instead striking D'Amore by mistake. → Still wordy. What about Roode then attempted to bash Dustin with it but instead mistakenly struck D'Amore.? –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is the "Reception" section one tremendously huge paragraph? On the opposite end, why are there short, choppy paragraphs in the "Aftermath" section? Please have some consistency and use full paragraphs of reasonable length (i.e. somewhere between 4-8 sentences).
 * Usually reception sections aren't anything, see Against All Odds (2005). Most PPVs have the reception as a small section in the Aftermath. I started using a different tactic with Turning Point (2008), making it its own section. This one just got a little out of hand. I wanted to make an actual reception section instead of coverage over two matches and that be it. For an event by a small promotion that is 6 years old there was surprisingly alot of good info to use in the reception. Also another reason its so large as on the computer I was using while I finished it had it at half the size on the screen. Also, TNA have 3 big shows: Lockdown, Slammiversary, and Bound for Glory. I plan to get all the articles in each branch to FA. Large reception sections I thought might be a good improvement from the old format I used with Lockdown (2008) (shitty as it is today, I plan to update it soon being its 3 years old and was passed in 2009. It was my first article.). As for the Aftermath, its really there just wasn't alot that connected to Lockdown. Hard Justice was held 3 weeks after, then Slammiversary 4 or 5, and during that time TNA only held 2 Impacts before they went off the air. Then they came back on after Slammiversary and by then nothing was connected to Lockdown. I've considering putting some info about the 2006 event, but haven't yet. The paragraphs being so small as I learned a paragraph covers one complete subject, and each one is about a different storyline/match unless they are connected somehow.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The single paragraph "Reception" section is nine sentences long and 571 words long. Is there a way at least that you can split it into two paragraphs? I think that would be ideal.
 * Specifically in the "Aftermath" section, I think you can combine the first two paragraphs (as Raven is the link between the two), and I think you can get away with combining the last two, as that basically mentions the events of both the April 29 and May 6 episodes of Impact!. What do you think? –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The rules to the contest were that... → The sentence seems fairly wordy and long-winded. I was thinking of something like "two out of three falls" and then mention that the third fall would be contested while blindfolded.
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Then followed by jumping off... → Something seems to be missing there.
 * A subject, fixed-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Followed by jumping off the top of the cage... → Something also missing there, as that is not a complete sentence.
 * Another subject, fixed.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The odds even upped after Diamond Dallas Page entered... → I'll leave the beginning up to you to reword, but "even upped" is not a good encyclopedic tone. "Further" (for instance) sounds more neutral in tone.
 * Just removed it, only there to make it seem prettier.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "However" is not used as a conjunction. Please use "but" instead.
 * Location?-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many locations, about 5 or 6 if I recall. Do a Ctrl+F search in the article for  (with a single space after the word) for where they appear in the article. –MuZemike 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all found.-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the remaining two that were left. Two things for future reference: if you end up using "however" mid-sentence, then that is a good indication that "but" should be used instead; second, I saw the following: "He, however, ...", just stick the "however" at the beginning of the sentence so that you're not wasting another comma. –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * MOS:LQ – usage of end-punctuation at the end when quotations are involved are inconsistent. From my check, nearly all of the end-punctuation should be after the end-quotation mark.
 * From my knowledge punctuation is always supposed to be within the quotation marks.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But our manual of style (as upheld by longstanding consensus) has been to place them inside when they are part of the quoted material; otherwise, they should be outside. –MuZemike 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all found.-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In a review by Ronnie LaFianza for the website 411Mania, Lockdown was rated an overall 8 out of 10. → Did he give the rating for the event as part of his review? If so, you can easily eliminate the passive voice and say something like 411mania's Ronnie LaFianza rated Lockdown an overall 8 out of 10. The same thing applies to the proceeding sentence.
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I got the other two that were missed. –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...where he lost the title in a King of the Mountain match to Raven, which also involved Abyss, Sean Waltman, and Monty Brown. → Did Raven involve Abyss, Waltman, and Brown, or did the match involve them? How it's worded, that is unclear. Tweak it appropriately.
 * Included number, done.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem here still?-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...following forcing Young's face into the mat. → I admit that I am not terribly familiar with the usage common wrestling nomenclature in wrestling articles, but wouldn't it make more sense to readers to instead say that Killings pinned Young after doing the Pedigree on Young?
 * Well the name Pedigree is jargon and would have to be explained out, as well as The Pedigree is the name given to the move by Triple H, so its not a pedigree. Its official name is "Double Underhook Facebuster". Even if it could be said it would have to explained as "Killings forced Young's face into the mat with The Pedigree to win the bout." As per agreement at WP:PW to be in line with WP:JARGON, WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, etc we explain things out a small bit. The point is to get the idea of what is going on out there for all readers. The point is Young's face was forced into the mat by a move.-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine. I wasn't sure whether or not terms like Pedigree was used widespread as opposed to being restricted to Triple H. I agree that readers will get mildly irritated by terms such as "double underhook facebuster". –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead issues
 * "Lockdown was the first-ever all steel cage event held in professional wrestling." --> Seems like that should be in the first paragraph instead of in the third paragraph, where it doesn't fit very well.
 * Always been a consistent format between some PPVs. The first paragraph is the introduction, the second is about the card, and the third is for the miscellaneous. Thats more fit for the third than the first.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that this marks a very notable and historic event in professional wrestling and that this may be an exception to place it on top where readers will see it more. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance of listing just the one review from Canadian Online Explorer in the lead compared to all the others? If you're going to mention reception of anything in the article's lead, you should provide a summary of what the reception was (i.e. positive, negative, mixed, etc.); then, if a particular review stands out, include it.
 * See above. There is a rough format for articles. I'd include more for it but there really isn't as that is the only thing that covers the full event. The rest is based on the matches. Not sure how saying Aj vs Abyss was 4 stars is going to really help explain the event much more. I got the 411Mania statement, but to be truthful I'm kinda scared to use that source. 411Mania has passed being used in FAs, but I've never been one to use them. Using them to cover reception is the main thing. Just not one the sources I use. I can never explain why they are reliable. The other sources I can.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll agree with that one. –MuZemike 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Verifiability/sourcing issues

The only one I have so far is that, if you have press releases for sources, you should use the Cite press release template, as that automatically adds "Press release" to the citation, letting readers know about what they are accessing. The sources themselves look good, but I'll later check through the article to see if the material accurately reflect the material in the sources given.
 * I don't use direct press releases as they no longer exist. I use WrestleView's archive of saved information which at times is a copy of the TNA press release. I usually include TNA in the work then.-- Will C  06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A problem here, as the sources aren't directly from TNA so I'm not sure how this works out?-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Wrestleview.com passes anyways as a WP:RS (most certainly they have their ship together here), so I don't think that's much of a problem as it is. –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If Skipper is also known as "Prime Time", then that should be mentioned in the article; I went into the source for the one four-way elimination match expecting that I would find "Skipper" but didn't.
 * Prime Time is a nickname of his "Prime Time" Elix Skipper. Its not his official ring name or anything. Its like Chris Daniels is called The Fallen Angel, Abyss is called The Monster, Styles is called The Phenomenal A.J. Styles or The Phenomenal One, etc. Its a means of marketing a character.-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't sure on that. –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In progress, but consider it on hold once completed. It's not completed yet, but this article needs at least a fairly comprehensive copyedit in order to pass Good article criteria, which currently falls very short. Note that I have not yet checked the sourcing, but I will get to that this weekend when I get time. –MuZemike 23:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Go ahead and take your time. I know its hard to review an article. I still got one myself to review and I can't find the time to do a deep review for it. Thanks for the review as well. I hope I'm not being difficult, I spent alot of time on this article and its one I've been looking forward to doing since 2009 when I wrote Victory Road (2004). As such I want whats best for it and to make things simple for you as you may not be familiar with wrestling and such. As for sources I'll explain. Pro Wrestling Torch is founded by Wade Keller, who is a known and remarked wrestling journalist. He and James Caldwell have covered the "sport" for several years now and interviewed several wrestlers, etc in the business. They are also connected to Figure Four/The Wrestling Observer ran by Dave Meltzer. Slam Sports is owned by the news corporation Canadian Online Explorer, think that speaks for itself. WrestleView is ran primarily by Adam Martin who is a known journalist in the wrestling community as well, having been interviewed by several sites, magazines, etc and gets his information from Wrestling Observer, PWTorch, and through his own efforts as well as the other columnist involved. Pro Wrestling History is unknown, but covers only minor information like attendance and match times, things easily obtainable. 411Mania I can't explain but its only covering the editor's own beliefs and a DVD review. Its been used in other FAs and GAs though.-- Will C  10:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've pretty much finished with the prose issues, and I think the only big one left is checking for verifiability, which I should get to within the next day. –MuZemike 04:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I hope I've fixed your issues so far.

On hold – That pretty much wraps up everything that I saw. Verifiability looks pretty good aside from the minor issues I listed above. –MuZemike 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I can fix the remaining issues.-- Will C  14:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks in order for the most part. Passed. –MuZemike 23:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)