Talk:TNA World Championship/GA1

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

I'm putting this review on hold for one simple reason: It does not seem that there is an agreement on when Angle became the first champion. The history section said "he won it at Sacrifice, was stripped later" the "Reigns" section says the first champion was crowned at Slammiversary. I also noticed that the List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions that this shares a lot of info with is tagged with a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag, over the very same thing - which means that this article suffers from the same problem.

In conclusion: The involved parts need to come to an agreement or delist this as GA.

I hate to be harsh but one requirement for a Good Article is that it's stable and with such a dispute going on it's not stable at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright I'm satisfied that the article is stable enough to begin the proper review. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright I've had time to do an actual review and well judging from the list of issues I've got below it's put on hold again. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Info box
 * Angle is not "Officially" a 4 time champion, TNA decides what is and is not "official" about their product and they've said 3 times - he may "technically" be 4 times or whatever, but officially he's not.
 * Well that is up for debate, but for now, okay.-- Will C  02:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that debatable? your definition of "official" seems to be odd, "Official" does not mean the same as "It actually happened", officially is what TNA writes on their websites, states in their press releases and says on their tv shows, they're the "Officials" on TNA and if they state something it's "official". MPJ-DK (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view of an encyclopedia, official is not what TNA says, but what is true. That is why it is debatable. How can an encyclopedia be reliable if he is not held down by facts, instead by a company?-- Will C  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I've had enough of the debate over "official", please check like [www.dictionary.com dictionary.com] or something like that to find out what it actually means because I grow weary of trying to explain what the word means. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what the word means, don't try to belittle me. We just have disagreements on how things should be handled when it comes to titles among other things. But that discussion isn't meant for here. I plan to bring that up at WT:PW later.-- Will C  06:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, well then since it's not settled yet my original statement on the article not being stable and in the middle of a dispute is still valid. If it needs to be settled in WP:PW that's fine, go ahead. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have misunderstood. This right here has nothing to do with if Angle has three or four reigns. That has been fixed all ago. This right here, is what I believe that has nothing to do with this article and has done nothing to compromise it either.-- Will C  08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Acronym for TNA by the promotion's name.
 * Done.-- Will C  02:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * I'm not sure what you think source [1] confirms about the lead section? the page does not even refer to it as the "World Heavyweight", just the "World" which could lead to some confusion as this is the first source we come to. The source just confirms who is the current champion and when he won it - none of which is mentioned in the text at this point.
 * It sources where the title is ranked. It is the first on the list. The rest of that sentence is pretty much common sense.-- Will C  02:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say infering positioning on the page as it's rank is close to Original Reasearch, maybe it's just first alphabetically? Heavy, Tag, Women's Legend X division.. H is alphabetically first. The source does not support the claim and thus is pointless. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that is speculation in a sort. Common sense may come into play here. In pro wrestling the heavyweight belt is usually the highest in the company. You've pointed out this is not always true, but in american wrestling the top championship usually ends up being the heavyweight belt. I don't believe it is OR. Really just common sense.-- Will C  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation & common sense, along the lines of "logic don't apply to wrestling" perhaps? And getting back to the source, it says "World Champion", it does not even state "heavyweight" so it's not a source for ANYTHING at this point, it should have been removed and replaced with a source that actually supports what's written. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was speaking to you as a wrestling fan to another. If a book is called "This book's cover is blue" and you write saying the cover is blue when the cover is actually blue, is that OR, Speculation, or common sense? If you had asked for a source if the title was actually called the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, I would have given one. The first cite, covers the sentence "It is currently the highest ranked championship in TNA and is primarily defended in TNA's heavyweight division" which has nothing to do with sourcing its name. In the cite, it shows that it is placed first out of all the titles signifying it is the highest ranked. Since it was already know the title's name, the heavyweight division part is not hard to believe. I can also get a source for this, but I just didn't think it would be needed.-- Will C  08:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "is primarily defended in TNA's heavyweight division" hmmm has there ever been made a point of defining what the heavyweight division is according to TNA? They've had guys around 200 pounds challenge for the title, they generally ignore the fact that "Heavyweight" is technically a lower limit and promote it as having no real weight limits.
 * Well since TNA has never said if there is a limit or not, plus the title is called the TNA World "Heavyweight" Championship, I feel it is safe to say it is contested for in a division. But this is professional wrestling and there is hardly ever consistency nor logic.-- Will C  02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's division seems to be "men" then, no lower limit has been enforced as guys like Jay Lethal has had a shot at the title, implying that there is an actual "division" is misleading. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically it is misleading either way. On one hand, it is called the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, so automaticly you think it is for heavyweights only. But who is to say it is only for men? Awesome Kong has competed for the World Tag Titles. Then the term heavyweight could mean differently to TNA. A heavyweight could be anyone above 200 pounds to them.
 * "could mean", yes it could mean anything but since it's not stated if there are any limits then a Good Article does not infer that there even is a "division". MPJ-DK (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it is pretty much common sense when it comes to this idea. We could ask uninvolved parties if it would be common sense to suggest it is apart of a division, though there is no proof at this point other than the name of the title if there is one. I feel it is pretty much, easy to tell there could be a division. This is still wrestling, and logic does not exist in it.-- Will C  06:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense goes out the window when you start to actually refer to a "heavyweight division", a specific division that does not exist, something which YOU state but isn't backed up by any sources, that's the very definition of Original Research. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, you say that it doesn't exist. Though Mike Tenay and West state on Impact all the time about the "heavyweight division". But you don't like primary sources. So I was looking for a third party ref. I still believe it is common sense. Why would it be called the heavyweight title, if there wasn't a divison?-- Will C  08:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "It was created and debuted" - I'd say "unveiled" instead of debuted, it did not run in during a match after all ;) and you can argue that the championship was created at the PPV, the physical belt was just not unveiled until that day and it was not confirmed until then that it was the TNA World Heavyweight Championship that ANgle & Cage fought over at the PPV. He cannot be a 4 time champion if the "unrecognized" reign you refer to begins before it was created, it does not logically add up.
 * Fixed. Hadn't looked at it like that.-- Will C  02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mention in the lead that the Impact show did not air until the 17th otherwise you say "It was unveiled on the 14th but officially introduced the 15th"
 * Well it was revealed at the taping of Impact! on the 14, but that show did not air till Thursday on the 17. TNA Today aired on the 15. The first date is used since that is really the official debut of the physical belt. I'll clear that up in the lead.-- Will C  02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's the official TNA YouTube channel and all YouTube is not generally a reference accepted in Good Articles and if it's going to be acceptable there needs to be some sort of specific time indicator in the citation and maybe a quote from the show as well. Preferably it should be replaced by a secondary source instead of the primary source that is there now.
 * Seeing as it is from official youtube account, it is a primary source as you said. And it this position, having the actual show as a reference would be better in my mind than one from a third party site in written form. Timeline added.-- Will C  02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the addition of the timeline fixes the concern about this source. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Will C  08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Link storyline, Narrative thread is the suggestion I've gotten in FLs
 * Done.-- Will C  02:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [4] = Solie.org, sources something borderline controversial with the "is Angle a 3 or 4 time champion" and thus I'd like to see a better source than that. Considering that the TNA World Heavyweight Championship was created way into the internet era there should be PLENTY of secondary sources available. It's also not some "indy fed" where it'd be hard to find coverage and Solie could be allowed as one of the few sources around.
 * Oh, there are plenty of sources out there regarding this, just not title history references. I would use TNA's, but they haven't updated their's since Joe was champion. Looking at Solie's page, they are going word by word with TNA's official view on the history. Anyway, I'm only using it to source his three reigns. I'll fix the placements. I do have wrestling titles.com, but again they are questionable.-- Will C  02:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So once again, you ignore my review comments. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I told you there were none out there that have been proven reliable.-- Will C  08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not call it a "Good Article" yet. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither source [1] nor [2] state how many times Kurt Angle has won the title just that he's the current champion, it also does not address the "3 or 4" issue which means that at the moment, that claim is actually "Original Research".
 * They are to source he is the current champion, not his reigns. Since the lead is an overview of the article, I wouldn't say it is OR since it is sourced later in the article.-- Will C  02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please point to the source that covers then "3 or 4" reigns comments. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3, 4, 11, and 13 verify his reigns. 3 shows he was recognized as champion after Sacrifice. 4 shows his three reigns that are recognized by TNA through solie. 11 shows that he was stripped of the championship by TNA after Sacrifice. And 13 shows two of his three reigns recognized by TNA since they have yet to update their history.-- Will C  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No source presented has ever stated that TNA recognized him as the TNA World champion and then withdrew that recognition. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The web archive link shows that TNA recognized Angle as champion when he was stripped of the title. The current title history today, does not show Angle's reign at that time. 2 + 2 = ?-- Will C  08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A web archives article directly from TNA is within the article. That says TNA stripped Angle of the title. Plus a review of the May 17, 2007 episode which states that Angle was recognized as champion.-- Will C  08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead would be a good place to mention that it replaced the NWA World title as TNA's main title, interesting tid-bit and would make the lead a bit longer, as it is I'd say it's on the short side.
 * Well I had at one point, but looking at the size of the article, the lead is pretty much the right size. I'll think about though.-- Will C  02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, another "no I don't think so" reply. That's your perogative. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the ability to disagree with some things you suggest. You nor I own the article. You didn't have to review it anyway. Plus in the TNA X Division Championship's review, it was thought the lead at the size it was, was too big. And that article is longer than this one. So, I didn't think it would be smart nor helpful. Plus you never said exactly what you wished to be mentioned mainly.-- Will C  08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * History
 * I cannot get the video in source [6] to work, may be temporary
 * The site is down for the moment. Should be back up soon.-- Will C  02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still does not work, has not worked since I started reviewing it. It's a deadlink and thus not a source any more. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'll look around.-- Will C  08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the video is used then a time index is needed and a quote or two could be helpful
 * Will do once it is back up.-- Will C  02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "weekly pay-per-view (PPV) event (#1)" what's the "(#1)" doing there? it was already stated that it was the first.
 * I'm such a dumbass.-- Will C  02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Something other than a primary source for the PPV please, we're not talking an indy fed or results from 1980.
 * Changed it with WrestleView ref.-- Will C  02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Source [7] says "PPV 2" but the text mentions the first one, nothing else.
 * Cite episode. May bad, replaced it anyway, meant to write 1.-- Will C  02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please link both NWA WOrld Heavyweight & World Tag titles.
 * Fixed. Must have forgot too.-- Will C  02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "This situation resulted after Christian Cage" => "This situation arose after Christian Cage"
 * "TNA were scheduled to produce their May 2007 Sacrifice PPV event on the very same day with Cage defending the NWA World Heavyweight Championship against two opponents and Team 3D set to defend the NWA World Tag Team Championship against two other teams." => "TNA were scheduled to produce their May 2007 Sacrifice PPV event on the very same day, with Cage scheduled to defend the NWA World Heavyweight Championship against (Mention opponents by name) and Team 3D set to defend the NWA World Tag Team Championship against (mention opponents)."
 * Fixed.-- Will C  03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference [8] does not say that they were supposed to defend the NWA titles, but that they actually DID defend the NWA titles (the review mentions the NWA name and all)
 * I can replace it with the card, but I thought a review of the event would show they did, so before the event it would be common sense they were set to defend the belts.-- Will C  03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whu? they did what? Nothing mentions that they defended A "world title", not "NWA World titles" MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is shorthand writing. You are a bit rude in this review. What other titles were in TNA at that time? You may actually want to think.-- Will C  08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Matches on the card were announced as being for strictly the World Heavyweight Championship or World Tag Team Championship." => Matches would indicate in general, so TNA X-Division title as well. clear it up
 * That makes no sense. But I think I get what you are getting at.-- Will C  03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Referencing the PPV in [9]? Primary source, please make an effort and find secondary sources, there should not have to be a single "TNA source" on here if possible.
 * I'm referencing the ring announcing and the graphics. Not something that is really talked about in reviews.-- Will C  03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-wrestling readers have no clue what "primary authority figure" means, not even a link to the kayfabed comissioner or anything?
 * Crap, someone removed the link. Readded.-- Will C  03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he "stripped" Angle of the title, not "Striped"
 * Fixed.-- Will C  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my note on "debuting the belt" from the lead.
 * Fixed.-- Will C  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cornette then announced the championship would be contested for at TNA's Slammiversary PPV", "contested for at" is an ugly sentence.
 * Fixed.-- Will C  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The last statement, the most contentious statement of the entire section is unsourced, that's a problem.
 * Fixed.-- Will C  00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it does not, it does not state that they "no longer" recognize him, nothing indicates that they EVER recognized him. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I showed in this link right here that they recognized that Angle was champion. I also show in this link that he no longer recognized as being champion on that day.-- Will C  08:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reigns
 * It basically just copies the same section from the "list" page, a page that has virtually the same information as this page except it has an 8 item list. Was it really necessary to split it up? You've ended up with an article on the TNA WOrld title that's very light on content and a List that's really not "stand alone" compared to this article.
 * I didn't break it up. Truco did. The List article's lead should be cut down, I just haven't done it yet.-- Will C  03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's it? We get details on creation, then the "stats" on the rest of the reigns?? Makes for a very short article, it os not really "broad in coverage" is it? You get creation in quite some detail and then nothing at all, I'm sorry but to me that's just wrong, write a bit about the title reigns, give the actual history of the title AFTER it was created, not just how it was created please because it's lacking now.
 * I could add more, just not sure what about.-- Will C  03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a belt design section in there, but it was thought to be original research. Since the description was based off of the images within the article.-- Will C  03:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * As stated there is no reason all "TNA" sources could not be replaced by secondary sources, we're talking from 2007 and on after all.
 * Sometimes TNA sources are needed. And in this case, they are with all the problems in the history. I'll replace the ones I can.-- Will C  03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Failing to actually listen to several points and failure to incorporate important parts of the review means I cannot go on, no point in reviewing it any further if the review falls on deaf ears. I do not belive it's a "Good Article" based on the various unaddressed statements and the fact that WP:PW apparently need to sort out the "Is he 4 or is he 3" thing. I failed the article, feel free to resubmit it when a consensus is reached and you feel ready to actual listen to other people's comments. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I look above, and I see two points not fixed which were under discussion. I have the right to oppose anything and everything you state. It is already established that he has 4 reigns. I'm going to GAR.-- Will C  08:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)