Talk:Turning Point (2004 wrestling)/GA1

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

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Additional comments are always welcome. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well written

 * Need to fix the prose in a few areas. Look below for any outstanding issues that should be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Will C  19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing that keeps bothering me is the format of the PPV titles. Shouldn't they be in italics or quotes?  If not, why not?  Looking at the wrestling PPV's by category, I don't see any that use italics or quotes.  Obviously, this must be the convention, but I have never run into it before, so I'm a bit curious. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is against the Manual of Style. I forget the link but this problem was discussed once before why we don't must italics. It was a big discussion that ended when someone showed a link against it in the MoS.-- Will C  01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'm here to learn.  The relevant MoS can be found here: WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide: "Pay-per-view events are to be written with no italics." Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you answer my question about the use of storyline build in the "Background" section? Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well seeing as pro wrestling is scripted, we try to write in that frame that the feuds are fake but the slams are real. You'll have to be more clear on your question about it.-- Will C  21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but I'm talking about the word choice. The typical term is "storyline build up" or "buildup".  Where do you get "storyline build" from?  I would appreciate it if you look into this and fix it if necessary.  I'm going to pass this as GA now, because it meets the criteria. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some questions in the "Reception" section below. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

 * Ok, so far. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good.-- Will C  19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A few issues to work on below. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where?-- Will C  21:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * Ok, so far. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good.-- Will C  19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

 * Images checked for copyright status, fair use rationale, relevance and captions. Everything looks great. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good.-- Will C  19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Layout concerns listed below in relevant subsections. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Will C  19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

 * You say that XXX had to disband twice in the lead. There are several ways of dealing with this, but the easiest is just to remove it from the first instance, as it is implicit in the subsequent win, and leave the second instance intact since this is the place it needs to be said.  This means rewording the second paragraph to something like, "The main event was a Six Sides of Steel cage match with a pre-match stipulation that the losing team would disband.  America's Most Wanted (Chris Harris and James Storm) (AMW) defeated Triple X (Christopher Daniels and Elix Skipper) (XXX) in the cage match."  Of course you can change that around, but you get the idea.  That way, you can keep, "The event is mostly remembered for the main event, in which XXX had to disband", although I would change that as well, to something like "Turning Point (20024) is remembered for the disbanding of XXX in the main event." Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it, this was a simple fix, so I went ahead and did it.-- Will C  08:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job with the change. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: I see you using double parens. to introduce the reader to the initialism before using it, and it looks like this is the way you do it for all wrestling articles you write. But, is this the right way to do it?  I ask because I suspect the initialism should be part of the original parens. and not follow it with another parenthetical.  I have no idea how it is supposed to be done, but something like,  Triple X (XXX, Christopher Daniels and Elix Skipper) or America's Most Wanted (AMW) (Chris Harris and James Storm) might work.  My understanding is that the initialism should follow the actual term.  No big deal on this, but I'm interested where you adapted the current style from in the first place.  One other reason this is a problem is because it duplicates the parenthetical referencing style, and that's obviously not what you are doing.  There's a rule for formatting double parens. like this, but I don't recall what it is. :)  Don't worry too much about this, I'm just curious if you remember where you got it from. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, I just do. I guess I followed the example per other ppvs. I can replace one with hypens if you want?-- Will C  10:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain the format is wrong. Let me look into this a bit more. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion, I just removed all instances of initialisms. Believe it or not, it actually seems to work. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More notably was a move during the match in which Elix Skipper stood on top of the cage and grabbed Chris Harris by the head with his legs, fell backwards, which caused Harris to be pulled him off of the top in a move known as a hurricanrana or a frankensteiner, however Skipper has dubbed this move the "New School".
 * We need a slight rewrite to fix the sentence here. "...to be pulled him off of the top" doesn't make sense, so please try to rewrite that part.  Also, this long sentence is a good candidate for splitting into two for readability. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do that tomorrow. A bit tired at the moment.-- Will C  10:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this so it took me a bit longer than I wanted too. I reworded it and cut it down at the sametime. Hope you like it, and also for you to know, take your time with the review. I'm in no rush. I'm just glad I have a review :).-- Will C  08:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huge improvement, great job. :) I might tweak it a bit if I get a chance, but for now it is fine.  I'll try and make some progress on the review in the next hour.  Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- Will C  19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Kapur says that Turning Point was NWA-TNA pay-per-view's "first foray into monthly PPV's, a change from their former weekly offerings – ie: their first chance to compete in the WWE's proven playground." That's an interesting factoid that would go well (rewritten of course) in the article and the lead section.  Of course, this is not necessary for GA, but something you might want to consider.  It would also cover the "business" angle, which hasn't received as much coverage in this article as it could. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Kapur wrote that wrong. Victory Road (2004) was their first monthly PPV. Turning Point was their second. Also for the NWA-TNA thing, yeah they were referred to as that for a while but at this point they held the event just as TNA.-- Will C  21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Background

 * This match was contested inside a 16 foot (4.9 m) high steel structure with six sides—known as Six Sides of Steel; to win a person must either gain a pinfall or submission.
 * Shouldn't this be in the beginning of the paragraph, before you introduce the tag team? As the reader, that's what I would want to see.  Introduce me to the main event, then tell me who the wrestlers are; right now you've got it reversed.  Let me try this.  If you don't like it, revert it. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The storyline build to this match
 * I changed this because the term is "storyline buildup". Where did you get the term "storyline build" from?  Keep in mind, formal language is used in the encyclopedia whenever possible, which is why I changed it to "The buildup to the match storyline", which is about as formal as you can get. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * then being unable to get to their feet before the referee counted to ten until there was one left, who won the match for his team
 * I'm assuming you mean AMW? I can't tell from this sentence.  "Who won the match for his team"? Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the explanation and it is mentioned before the explanation that AMW won the encounter.-- Will C  19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  The teams fought at TNA's previous and first monthly three-hour PPV event, Victory Road, in an Elimination Last Team Standing match, resulting in a victory for America's Most Wanted. In an Elimination Last Man Standing match, a series of events must take place to eliminate a participant. First a participant must be pinned then the pinned participant has until the referee's count of ten to reach their feet before they are officially eliminated from the match. The first two members of a team to be eliminated lose the contest.
 * Hey, good work on explaining this to the reader. We need more of that.   One thing though, I would prefer to read that America's Most Wanted won the match after you explain it.  I'll change this around but if you don't like it, please change it back. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alot of people are against the explaning of terms, so it is nice to know it does help.-- Will C  01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? That's an incredibly important task, and you've done a great job with it. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, alot of people want to get rid of the entire format. The storyline build, the begining sentence explaining wrestling, explaining mathes, explaining moves, etc. They don't to accept that wrestling is not understanded by everyone.
 * Daniels insinuated that the two were scheduled
 * Instead of saying "the two" can you just specify "X and himself" where X is the other wrestler you are referring to above? Or, if you can think of another way to say it, great.Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it to teams.-- Will C  01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Event

 * Preliminary matches
 * File:Abyss and Rhino in London Sep 2008.jpg is cutting into the next section at different resolutions. I understand why you placed the image there, because you wanted to align it with the Serengeti Survival match paragraph, which makes perfect sense, but as far as layout goes, it would look better if you moved it up to at least the previous paragraphs, or failing that, the beginning of the preliminary matches section.  This way, the image won't cut into the next section.  Of course, you could always just change the image use or use clear but I don't think those are the best options here.  It's up to you. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it up to the beginning of the section. Another simple fix.-- Will C  08:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good.-- Will C  19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The NWA World Tag Team Championship was fought for in the first match, with the 3Live Kru (B.G. James and Ron Killings) defending the championship against Team Canada (Bobby Roode and Eric Young), who were accompanied by Coach D'Amore.
 * Why not just say: "In the first match, 3Live Kru (B.G. James and Ron Killings) defended the NWA World Tag Team Championship against Team Canada (Bobby Roode and Eric Young), who were accompanied by Coach D'Amore." Doesn't that say the same thing in less words or does it lose something? Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The team of Héctor Garza, Sonjay Dutt, and Sonny Siaki were pitted against the team
 * Can you clarify that this is the second match? Or not? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Garza, Dutt, and Siaki won the match after Graza jumped off the top rope backwards and twisted in mid-air to perform a corkscrew moonsault onto Kazarian for the pinfall victory.
 * I wanted to compliment you on this sentence. It's great! Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

 * Afterward, Daniels went on to make successful defenses, winning the championship four times; Skipper's singles career was not as victorious.
 * Is this sourced somewhere else in the article? Any claim about another persons career will need some kind of reference due to WP:BLP. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Crap, I can't believe I forgot to source that. I'll source it with bio articles from Slam Sports on Daniels and Skipper.-- Will C  23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourced it.-- Will C  01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * Writer Bob Kapur of the Canadian Online Explorer rated Turning Point a 7 out of 10,[9] which was the same as the 2005 event's rating.[18]
 * I understand that for sports fans, comparing data is an important part of the discourse. And I also know that this is a convention you are using across the board in all of the related articles.  But this comparison isn't explicitly made by the sources, after all, you are comparing an older statistic with a newer one.  I think it is acceptable because it is the same topic and event, and you are just stating a simple fact about the rating.  I'm curious though, have you done this type of comparison anywhere else in the article?  If you have, I would like to know about it.  Thinking about it a bit more, it might even be possible to reword it so that there isn't a problem, but for now it is fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No I haven't. The reception section is fairly new to the project and PPV articles. We haven't worked out all the problems with it. At the moment none of us have gotten that creative with it and we are all still on the first format we began to use in SummerSlam (2003).-- Will C  22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let this sit for a few hours and come back to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry the article is in bad shape. I thought it was better than this. I guess that one month of waiting on GAN actually changes your (me) opinion on articles. Hopefully I wrote Final Resolution and Against All Odds better.-- Will C  23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be so hard on yourself. These kind of issues crop up in every article, and we will have them fixed asap. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't want to cause problems. I usually try to make it as easy for the reviewer as possible.
 * You haven't caused any problems. In fact, you've taught me a few things about the Wrestling project I never knew before this review, so I'm happy.  But, I think I might have caused some problems with my crazy rollback. :( Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just put the entire "Reception" section in its own level2 section? Logically, I can undertand why you made it a subsection of "Aftermath", but it isn't necessary.  Your choice, of course. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is per the project's MoS. But I've been inclined to making it a single header. Just didn't feel the section was long enough. But I guess it won't hurt making it a level 2. Done.-- Will C  01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The X Division Championship and main event bouts gained better views from Kapur.
 * That's strange wording. Do you mean it garnered better reviews? Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Will C  22:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TNA later released a DVD counting down the top 50 moments in their history
 * Can you describe the date or title of the DVD here? "Later released" is somewhat vague. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Will C  22:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)