Template:Did you know nominations/Bound for Glory IV


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 16:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bound for Glory IV

 * ... that at Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's Bound for Glory IV pay-per-view event, the wrestler Abyss was forced through a flaming table?


 * Reviewed: Francisco Sutil

5x expanded by Wrestlinglover (talk). Self-nominated at 16:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Artıcle was expanded from 1,695 chars on July 11, 2015‎ -last edit before expansıon began- to 36,495 chars on December 5, 2015 -begin of expansıon- exceedlng required 5x-expancıon limit of  8,475 chars. Nomination took place on December 20, 2015. I am not sure wheter it ıs still eligible because of the time span of 15 days between the first expansion and the nomination date. Article is well-written, neutral and cites sources inline. The "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports several  possibilities of high-rate copy-vios. Hook is correct formatted and interesting. Hook fact is accurate and cited inline. QPQ was done. Image is ©-free and appears in the article. It does not show up well in small size. I ask kindly another reviewer with more experience to recheck the date and copy-vio issues. CeeGee 10:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Not sure if I am more experienced at reviewing, but I've spotted a couple of things. First of all this nomination was created on 5 December, so is fine (not sure where you got 20 December from). The other issue is to do with the copyvio. The reception section relies too heavily on quotes taken from Wade Keller. Example "too much that was too contrived looking and overly complex, including the awkward moment at the very end where Christian just stood there bent over waiting for Booker to hit his spot of the axe kick off the top rope. There was enough good about this match, though, that overall it was above-average. They definitely worked hard to produce a PPV-caliber match that filled its slot well.". Most of this can be converted into one's own words with snippets taken as quotes such as "too contrived" and "above-average".  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I argue that expansion statement. My expansion was on December 5] which makes it eligible for DYK. My nomination was the same day. As per here. There is no span of 15 days. As for reception, that is basic way the reception section is written in wrestling ppvs. I took alot from Keller because him and Dave Melzter are the top names in wrestling commentary. He does long winded sentences so it takes a while to get to his point. The article is undergo a GA review and an FA review so any of those issues will likely be handled very soon on whether I have quoted too much.-- Will C  06:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was created on May 28, 2008. December 5, 2015 is the date, on which the expansion began. The nomination was done also on that day. So, there is no date problem at all. It seems that I made a mistake. Sorry for the confusion. The copy-vio, close paraphrasing issues are still existent and need to be addressed. CeeGee 07:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that this article is number 66 in line for a GA review in sports and recreation, so it could be weeks (or more likely months) before it is reviewed and these issues even begin to be resolved. DYK's purpose is to showcase recent work (I admit we have a backlog and this isn't always possible), but we shouldn't put a nomination on hold for an indefinite amount of time; especially when it is very likely to be over a week. I don't think I or CeeGee will be passing this article in its current state. I will probably propose it be rejected soon if nothing changes with the article or no other reviews are made.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  07:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Jolly Janner. I think it won't be a hard job for some like you, who has contributed to such a nice article, and little work can bring it to approval status. The copy-editing you would need anyway by the GA-review process.CeeGee 08:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree. I don't think it is an issue to copyedit it, but I'm not sure where these issues truly are. I follow the same format on all articles and I've never run into this issue yet. I said the GA review mainly so I'd have someone to directly point out any issues. So far all I know is the reception section quotes alot, which I wasn't aware was an issue since I have citations for all quotes. Right now my issue is lack of clear information.-- Will C  14:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I cut some from the Keller paragraph.-- Will C  15:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Still a concern. Compare for example:


 * Source Really nice match with a good story until the finish in typical Jarrett fashion. The finish didn't hurt the drama and it was fine on a relatively-clean card so far, but two clean chair shots to the head indicates some people just won't ever learn. Jarrett looked to be in great physical condition in his first match back.
 * Article "really nice match with a good story until the finish in typical Jarrett fashion." Caldwell clarified that the "finish didn't hurt the drama and it was fine on a relatively-clean card so far, but two clean chair shots to the head indicates some people just won't ever learn." He also said that "Jarrett looked to be in great physical condition in his first match back."


 * You can use https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios to check up on these. You should be writing these in your own words and using snippets of quotes, if the wording is especially useful. Reply back when you think all close-paraphrasing issues have been resolved.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked that link and the literal only issue I can see is that quote you just mentioned. The rest of it is actual information like the title of the match, the result of the match, and who the commentators were. The Caldwell statement is the only one I have seen. The rest of it I am using in my own words. I'm just using quotes that I have accurately sourced to cover the reception of the event. I don't see any copyright or plagiarism issues for I have accurately divulged all information correctly. Maybe it is just me, I've been writing in this style for close to 8 years now and never had an issue.-- Will C  14:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrestlinglover, using three sentences in a row from a source is excessive here. With the exception of the "Jarrett in 20:00." opening, you've used the source's entire "Winner" section of the match review, which does not meet Wikipedia's "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media" criterion. Of the Keller quotes in the previous paragraph, the "four stars worth of action" one is so poorly written that I wonder why you would want to include the whole sentence with its double invocation of "dangerous". And quoting "insane flaming table spot" of the third reviewer from Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter (why so many reviewers from a single publication?) after you've already described it in your own words as "flaming table portion" earlier in the sentence is gratuitous repetition. As Jolly Janner says, your writing should use more of your own words and, only when necessary, snippets of quotes. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One, the majority of wrestling PPVs are written as such. I have had 30 GAs pass with that style along with several FLs. Then comes the two FAs I had pass with that same style. Along with EVERY SINGLE DYK I have that has passed has also used this very same style. Secondly, I think this is an issue of outside reviewers not understanding the material. You discussed the "Winner" section. Frankly that is incorrect. I used the only parts of the reviews with any actual material discussing perspective by the author. Go read the actual sources. Outside of the winner section, the author only discusses the play-by-play of the matches. I did not selectively choose what information I used from a source to push the agenda to a certain direction, I used the information of the author actually gave that was substantive and meant anything to the article. As for your dangerous comment, I honestly do not even understand your issue. The match had people being slammed onto tacks, set on fire, beaten with objects, and crashing through tables. A person discussing that this was dangerous is important. The section is called reception. The entire article is in my own words but in this section I displayed what experts on the subject actually felt regarding the content. As to why I used PWTorch so much is because it is the number 2 in wrestling commentary. Your question is like why would someone cite ESPN in an article covering the SuperBowl or the World Series. As for the flaming table spot, this hasn't been done on national tv in several years. This was actually the last flaming table spot in national wrestling since. So discussing it is rather important and the take on it. There are eight other sections in which I have discussed the entire subject using my own style. This section also uses my style. These are the words I have chosen to discuss the subject. I want to include quotes from people in the industry to give the overall view from the industry of the event. I didn't want my feelings involved, I wanted the experts statements. Frankly, I do not see ANY issue here. I have cited every single quote. I have accurately displayed the quotes as they should be for a Reception section. If we are talking quality, please show me where a DYK has to be of a high quality standard because as far as I can tell that is not part of the criteria. As for the copyright violations, all quotes are "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media". I did not take a page. Every quote is less than the full sentence. I even cut some quotes out. All that is included is the statements that actually have a point. The longest quote used is that dangerous line you mentioned. The rest of them are just a few words. Wresting is like a movie. Comments are not "Good match" or "Strong contest." Comments are "This was poorly scripted and the writing team needs to adjust their future." They are automatically going to be a bit long to even get the point across. 8 years I've been here and I have never ever had an issue such as this and I've been using quotes pretty much the entire time for reception sections. As far as I can tell, I have met all the criteria for a DYK. If the issue now is whether the article has brief quotes then that is an entirely different issue. The article is new, it is long enough, the hook is cited, I have reviewed another article, and it does pass the MoS. If the issue is whether the WP:PW should use quotes in an entirely different way that is a different discussion all together because that is format, not the MoS or WP:CV because the quotes are brief.-- Will C  19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh and in regard to the portion and spot for the flaming table, I left spot in the quote because it is a quote and I used portion because "spot" is a jargon term which I should not use per WP:JARGON.-- Will C  20:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg excessive use of copyrighted material.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the above users failure to express exactly how the article has present copyrighted material in an unprofessional manner and how this entire review process from the first review as been filled with inaccuracies I suggest an entire new review with all previous information striped from the record.-- Will C  20:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To show I'm trying to actually solve the issue, I cut some random quotes to see if I've fixed the issue in some way.-- Will C  20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * All issues have been addressed, where is this at now?-- Will C  07:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I will find time tomorrow to do a full check on close paraphrasing and use of quotations. If that goes well, I will probably inform CeeGee (the original reviewer) and let him/her tick this nomination off. If I find copyvio issues, I will highlight them to you. If CeeGee doesn't respond timely I will probably tick this off myself. Regards,  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will go over this shortly to make sure I don't recognize any issues and solve them. I just don't want this to fail after putting so much effort into it.-- Will C  23:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * both myself and BlueMoonset have given critique about the level of quotes being used. The article has been edited to reduce the reliance of quotes. In my opinion the reactions section is currently at an acceptable level to prevent copyright violation. I've pinged you to see what your thoughts are on the matter, as I noticed you have previously reviewed the rest of the criteria.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Janner for the invitaion. I rechecked the article, and find all the issues raised by others are addressed now. To be fair however, as the paraphrasing issues were examined in-depth by others, I would rather let other reviewers to judge and approve. CeeGee 07:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I approve that the paraphrasing issues have been resolved. Did you want BlueMoonset to check as well?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I guess we owe him that. CeeGee 05:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think I need to. I did make some edits in the section that had been highlighted earlier, and those satisfied my concerns there. I haven't done a thorough check of the article, and haven't planned on doing so, especially as you both feel that it is satisfactory at the present time. (I also have a fair amount else on my plate at the moment.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg concerns raised by all three involved editors are resolved. This is ready to be promoted.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  07:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fantastic-- Will C  09:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)