Talk:TNA World Beer Drinking Championship/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, I'll review it shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * "and Young took the championship with him, having apparently won it" - took the championship, like walking out the door with it?
 * I rewrote sentence, but yep that's pretty much the point. Storm passed out, so he won. Picked up the title and walked away.-- Will C  22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The first round was a "never have I ever" round" - what is this?
 * Sadly, this was a time when TNA wrote some of the dumbest stuff. Its a skit. They are playing beer games. I tried to explain what was going on better.-- Will C  22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The second round was contested with both participants having beer bottles taped to their hands and neither being allowed to go to the bathroom. - what's happening here. I don't get it.
 * Extension of the skit. They were trying to be funny.-- Will C  22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Young won after Storm wet himself, which was confirmed by the newly named Jackie Moore". - "wet" as in peeing? Who is Jackie Moore?
 * Yes, exactly. I felt it sounded better than peeing. Ms. Jackie renamed. I explained that better.-- Will C  22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "after interference from Rhino" - what is "interference" here?
 * Fixed-- Will C  22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Storm won the bout after Moore retrieved the championship for him without the referee seeing" - explain? What didn't the referee see?
 * Fixed-- Will C  22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Also, I made some edits which you should check for accuracy - that I didn't inadvertently introduce error.
 * I will put this on hold so you can respond.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Also, I made some edits which you should check for accuracy - that I didn't inadvertently introduce error.
 * I will put this on hold so you can respond.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Also, I made some edits which you should check for accuracy - that I didn't inadvertently introduce error.
 * I will put this on hold so you can respond.
 * Also, I made some edits which you should check for accuracy - that I didn't inadvertently introduce error.
 * I will put this on hold so you can respond.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * just one more qurestion: "The first round was a "never have I ever" round, in which the participants had to admit to experiences they had never been involved in. If the opponent had partaken in a similar action he was forced to drink a shot." Do you mean that if the westler had never had the experience, but his oponent has, then the oponent is forced to drink another shot? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, best way I know how to word it currently.-- Will C  23:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reevaluation after fixes:


 * 1. Well written?:
 * 2. Factually accurate?:
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:
 * 4. Neutral point of view?:
 * 5. Article stability?:
 * 6. Images?:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for passing and reviewing this article.-- Will C  23:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)