Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012.

Turning Point (2008)

 * Nominator(s): Will  C  13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... its failed 3 nominations due to lack of support. I think it meets the criteria. I'll review for a review. You want me to review an article you got up, I'll do a deep review for a review of this one.-- Will C  13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments: I just went through and did some copy editing, feel free to revert any of my changes if you think they made things worse. The prose seemed ok to me (I'm not the best judge though). There were a couple sentences that I thought needed some more help:
 * "This followed later with Styles missing a pele kick on Sting, which allowed him to pin Styles with a small package to retain the championship."
 * "The number the participant was eliminated determined his ranking in getting a future TNA X Division Championship match, in storyline." Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All comments have been fixed and your copyedit improved the article in my opinion.-- Will C  14:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as I did last time. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you.-- Will C  16:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No one wishes to give comments I gather? I'm expecting this to be closed soon. Guess I'll have to renominate it again.-- Will C  06:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to close a FAC for lack of review so many times, so this one can sit here a bit longer until some kind person decides to review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, good. I don't want to have to nominate this a fifth time anyway. Anything I can do to get that review? I don't mind reviewing another article for one or something along those lines.-- Will C  22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Media review —  Andrew s talk  00:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Turning Point (2008).jpg - FUR is good, but could you tighten up the purpose of use a bit? Explain how its use helps the reader.
 * File:AJ Styles.jpg - both the caption and description read "A.J. Styles fought Sting for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship at Turning Point", but we can't tell (bar the file name) which one is pictured.
 * File:Beer Money July 2010.jpg is OK
 * File:Samoa Joe pensive in London Sep 2008.jpg is OK
 * File:Kurt Angle in TNA.jpg - (Aftermath section) again, caption doesn't differentiate between Kurt Angle, Rhino and Jeff Jarrett
 * All fixed.-- Will C  05:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Turning Point (2008).jpg still needs a bit of work. See WP:FUR for what should be included. —  Andrew s talk  05:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not exactly sure what else to do. It had a different Fair use explanation, but another Media reviewer came through and changed it during the first or second review.-- Will C  00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the poster is the primary visual image for the 2008 Turning Point? Say so. Describe why the non-free content it is needed in the article, and how it significantly enhances readers' understanding. —  Andrew s talk  05:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I gave it a shot.-- Will C  07:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not quite there (IMO). See File:Wonder World Tour poster.png for an example. —  Andrew s talk  09:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I looked and took a few lines from its purpose of use if that is alright to help better the understanding of use.-- Will C  08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. —  Andrew s talk  01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support on criterion 3 only. —  Andrew s talk  01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Jim A few points  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check my edits. The prose is a bit slack in places, have a careful read through to see if there is any redundancy or lack of clarity.


 * I'll look through, not sure if I'll see anything. I've looked it over so many times nothing pops anymore.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * first event under the name to take place in November. It was originally scheduled to take place in December, but TNA moved the event to November in late 2008 for an unknown reason &mdash; why is this notable enough for the lead?


 * I'd assume the date being changed somewhere around a month before it took place would be notable enough for the lead. Also considering, Turning Point was an annual December event since 2004. This being the one to break that and set a new consistency with future events.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * a 7 out of 10 &mdash; why "a"?


 * Makes it sound a bit better. "rated 7 out of 10" sounds odd compared to "rated a 7 out 10."-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ''on-screen co-owner (twice)  &mdash; I don't understand why he's only co-owner when he's on-screen. Needs clarifying or correcting.


 * Had to do with a storyline that started at the same time that would be pointless to explain in this article. Mick Foley was announced on the October 23 episode of ''Impact!" that he had bought half the shares of TNA from Jeff Jarrett, becoming part owner. It was pure storyline. I could change it to "storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley" or "co-owner of TNA Mick Foley, in storyline,..."-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hall, however, legitimately no-showed the event citing "food poisoning" as a result, leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse &mdash; two "legitimately", who decides legitimacy?
 * Removed the first one, its kind of redundant. Its due to reports that come out at the time. It was publicized at how angry Joe was viewing from his actions on the show. Since I have expanded Turning Point (2007) roughly.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jarrett, however, recommended Abyss as Angle's opponent, who was standing behind Angle in the ring and was a casualty of Angle's the previous week &mdash; confusing, at one point I thought Angle was standing behind himself!
 * I agree, poorly written by myself. Redone-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Storm spat beer in Sabin's face, which led to Beer Money gaining the pinfall  &mdash; the cause and effect isn't obvious to me
 * Worked on it a bit, tried to update it. Hopefully its fixed.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright I will handle these sometime tomorrow.-- Will C  01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the changes, and the points that you haven't accepted are individual style preferences. FWIW, one way of explaining material without disrupting the text is to use footnotes, as in this current FAC. It's particularly helpful when what might be obvious to an American fan is less clear to a Brit non-aficionado.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments they were greatly and I mean greatly appreciated. Made my day when I saw them. Been waiting so long for them and your support. WP:PW is all about explaining out to the uninformed reader. I will definitely take a look into the footnotes idea when I (massively) re-write Sacrifice (2008) for my next FAC nomination.-- Will C  12:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - Based on prose only. Presuming prior FAC attempts validated the sources, images etc. --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Comments from Noleander : End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, the prose is workmanlike. I wouldn't call it scintillating, but on the other hand I'm hard-pressed to identify shortcomings.
 * Worked on it around 2 years ago. Was my best then. Wrote better since. Was hoping the FAC would help improve it. Not had that many reviews.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prose: "The match came down to Lethal and Young, which Young won ... ".  Seems like "which" is modifying the noun closest:  Young. But I think it is intended to modify "match".  Perhaps reword
 * Done-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prose: " The match was announced as following lucha libre tag team rules, where a participant could ...".  Use of "where" in that manner is a bit too informal for an encyclopedia.  Re-word?
 * Done, switched to "in which".-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Term: "domestic buyrate"  - what is that?
 * I do believe it means origin country buyrate. I rarely include buyrates as they are rare to find. I just placed in what the ref said.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Term: "The build to the encounter between .." - "Build up" is more conventional, but maybe "build" without the "up" is wrestling argot?
 * Tried to make it sound more formal or "production based", in order to get away from the wrestling aspect of storylines and make it more about the event. Like the Superbowl being about the event and telecast more than just football idea. How so much is brought into the overall process. Thats why I used "build" as a means of showing the way they promoted the event, than the event promoting the storylines which is how most events are written these days it seems.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Italics? DVD:  "... as part of the "TNA Wrestling: Cross The Line Vol. 2" box set, ..." If that is a DVD title, maybe it should be italicized.  Not sure about that.
 * Never been brought up before I think I checked Italics not long ago, never saw anything about it.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Spell check - I ran it through a spell checker, and it looks good.
 * I spell check everything after I finish an article to make sure.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot checks on sources: I looked at 3 of the sources, and they were consistent with the associated material.  Was a more thorough spot check done in one of the prior FACs?
 * Yeah, I do believe 2 have been done.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward support: If the above items (from myself and Jimfbleak) are addressed, I would Support.
 * Alright, your choice on whether you wish or not. I do believe all comments for both have been addressed.-- Will C  08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a spotcheck of this article's sources. Ucucha (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Spot check of a few random sources (out of 38 total footnotes) by Noleander:


 * FN 4:
 * Result: Validated
 * Article: "On the first day of 2008, TNA updated their official website to publicize the official dates for all of their PPV events to take place that year."
 * Source: [dated 1 Jan 2008] .. contains a list of event dates


 * FN 12:
 * Result: Validated.
 * Article: "Sting's and Styles' rivalry soon escalated to a point where storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley announced on the October 30 episode of TNA's television program TNA Impact! that the two would fight for the championship at Turning Point"
 * Source: "Mick Foley entered the Impact Zone and talked about the new remodeling that was done. Foley talks about voting and TNA in HD. He announced two big main events for Turning Point which include, Kevin Nash vs. Samoa Joe and Sting defending the TNA Heavyweight Championship against AJ Styles. "


 * FN 14:
 * Result:  Partially validated.  But  "history of no-showing" not found in source.
 * Article: "Hall, however, missed the event citing "food poisoning", leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse; Hall has a history of no-showing events."
 * Source: "As the afternoon progressed and Hall wasn't answering his phone, a lot of concern grew within TNA that he was going to no-show. There was said to be hope as the PPV went live that he would eventually show up. However, Hall sent word that he had food poisoning and couldn't make it."
 * I expected this to come up. I could probably use a bio to source the extra part or just remove it. I was hoping it would fall under good faith or common sense, but that regarding wrestling. Its common sense in this world. Universal not really. So, its not that important, I might as well remove it. Its about the match, not Hall.-- Will C  03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if there is an article about Hall, it belongs there. --Noleander (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, its been removed.-- Will C  03:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FN 19:
 * Result: Validated.
 * Article: "Angered by Jarrett's refusal, Angle began assaulting several wrestlers in TNA to persuade Jarrett into accepting the challenge."
 * Source: "…Kurt Angle entered the Impact Zone and attacked David Penzer. ... Security and referees came out to stop the beating, but also wound up taking shots from Angle. Jeff Jarrett came out and told Angle to let it go. Angle said that he wanted a rematch .... Jarrett went nuts and went after Angle, but security held him back...." [much more detail in source]


 * FN 20:
 * Result: Validated
 * Article: "On the October 23 episode of Impact!, Angle challenged Jarrett again to a rematch, which Jarrett again refused."
 * Source: " Borash asked Jarrett if he will give Kurt Angle the rematch against him that he wants. Jarrett said he doesn't always get all he wants in life, but he'll get over it. He said Angle will get over never getting a rematch. He said he has business to take care of, so he had to leave."


 * FN 23:
 * Result: source not available.
 * Article: "The event featured employees other than the wrestlers involved in the matches. There were four overall commentators for the event; Mike Tenay and Don West provided English commentary, while Hector Guerrero and Willie Urbina served as the Spanish announce team."


 * FN 24:
 * Result: Validated, if "Gore" is a high-angled attack
 * Article: "… and came to a finish when Rhino pinned Bashir after a high-angled tackle."
 * Source: "Bashir settled in the ring into a chinlock at 6:00. Rhino came back at 8:00 with a spinebuster. Bashir got upset with the ref and spit at him. Rhino then surprised with him a lousy looking Gore for the win."


 * FN 38:
 * Result: Validated
 * Article: "Eric Young got his TNA X Division Championship match on the November 13 episode of Impact! against then-champion Sheik Abdul Bashir."
 * Source: "Mick says he believes in second chances and then says that Eric Young earned a shot at the X-Division Champion."

End of Noleander source spot check. --Noleander (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:
 * See MOS; avoid referring to images as being on the left or right.
 * Alright, removed only issue. However, I'm a bit confused how I'm going to be able to convey to a reader who Storm or Roode is in that picture?-- Will C  23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can distinguish them by things like "wearing hat", for example. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliability of some sources was queried at Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive3 and Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2; have those been resolved? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do believed that was handled on the first review, NikkiMaria voted Neutral and left it up to future reviewers. Other than that, I believe all other issues have been solved or at least attempted to be solved by me to the full extent.-- Will C  23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The last review (archive 3) queried two sources, that appear unresolved at the end of that review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Same sources that were brought up in the first and second reviews. It appeared it was more of a refresh rather than an issue. She never replied even after contacting that I recall. The first one is owned by Discovery while the second covers minor information such as attendance and match times. That sites gets its information from books, magazines, tapes, etc.-- Will C  23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Turning Point (2008) was a" was it actually called "(2008)"? It doesn't look that way from the poster.
 * No, but its meant to differentiate between the events "Turning Point was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event..." makes it sound like it is the only event in the series.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a US thing, but "under the Turning Point chronology " I would have thought it was "in" the chronology rather than "under" it....
 * Done-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you've just mentioned Canada, isn't it worth clarifying that " Phil Allely of The Sun " is a UK-based thing?
 * Well the first is because that is the name of the company, but for the sake of it, fixed.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to link rock music.
 * Fixed-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The promotional poster for the gathering was released some time prior through PPV providers featuring Mick Foley" -> "The promotional poster for the gathering, featuring Mick Foley, was released through PPV providers."
 * Done-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need the see also link to pro wrestling, that's already been linked to and isn't particularly specific to this section.
 * Part of the consensus at WP:PW.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * " leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse" if he had food poisoning, what made it legitimate to be "angered"?
 * I had a statement which explained this more, but it wasn't in the reference. It was believed by TNA this was an excuse and Joe believed it was as well. I felt the statement made that clear enough as is.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Joe and Nash's partnership seemed to come to a close after Nash disappeared from TNA television in mid-2008." -> "seemed to"? is that your opinion or is that a direct quote/ref?
 * Moreso, Common sense. He wasn't appearing on tv, so there could be no partnership between the two.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Check images have alt text.
 * Added-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * " (James Storm and Robert Roode; Pictured) " pictured no need for a capital P.
 * Fixed-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "was .5 above" ordinarily would expect 0.5 but perhaps this is a US thing.
 * Didn't see the point of the 0, there is always an invisible zero somewhere.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Table fails MOS:DTT, it's inaccessible to screen-readers and no real reason that the font size should be 85%.
 * First I've heard of this, I checked the link. It gave no information on what to change this too and I saw nothing on font size regulations. This is the same table that has been used for 4 years. I'm happy to change it, just don't know what to change it to.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For starters, you'll need to add row and col scopes to allow screen readers to announce new rows/cols. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, did first table, will do second if this is acceptable. In my opinion, it is a bit odd. Its kind of a reverse.-- Will C  18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot on. It's designed to help screen readers so not sure why you'd think it was "odd" and a "reverse", but looking forward to you fixing up the next table.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, the old one just looked neater.-- Will C  21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought MOS said to avoid using # as a replacement for "number"?
 * Never heard of this before. Went and checked it says so, but that is for prose. Went ahead and changed it anyway.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "X Division rankings match eliminations" table, Eric Young isn't linked first time.
 * Went ahead and linked all names, since tables are exceptions to overlinking.-- Will C  01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We have not yet had reliability of sources cleared on this FAC-- I listed it at WT:FAC days ago as still needing a source check for reliability. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, first time I've heard of this. Its had several source checks in the past. None seem to be outstanding. All issues appear to have been met. I can explain source reliability if needed again. The Sun and Slam Sports should be obvious. Meanwhile, Pro Wrestling Torch is a leader in wrestling news, its pretty much number 2 next to Wrestling Observer/Figure Four. It has been running in several ways since the late 80s. Their information is determined with sources from inside the companies, through the wrestlers, road agents, etc, via interviews, inside tips, etc. WrestleView prints its information by relay from Wrestling Observer, TNA, or PWTorch. The main journalist Adam Martin has interviewed several within the industry and been interviewed by several magazines and radio shows due to his connection with wrestling. They publish stories that are backed up by various people, rather than speculate like other wrestling sites. TNA, Pro Wrestling History, and HowStuffWorks is all that is left. TNA is primary, HowStufWorks is own by Discovery so obvious, and Pro Wrestling History is minor covering attendance and match times which are not detrimentally important to the article. I could probably remove it if needed, but was used in Lockdown (2008) when it was passed.-- Will C  16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a Dispatch that should help in your work: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. And here's a page from another Project that shows how to establish a self-published source as reliable: WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliability of sources:
 * 1) There is nothing here to indicate reliability: http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/about.html  Please review WP:V and WP:RS and explain what makes this source reliable, according to policy.
 * I'm already in the process of removing it to an extent. Its been a WP:PW thing to use it, I've disliked using it since I can't explain other than what I've been told so I've begun removing it with recent articles I've done such as Slammiversary (2005). I'm replacing the match times. The only thing it will be used for is attendance since the Impact! Zone is fed tourist from Universal Studios they always have the same number that its no longer posted by sites.-- Will C  18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There is nothing here that speaks to journalistic credentials or editorial oversight: http://www.wrestleview.com/info/staff.shtml  Please explain what makes this a reliable source, according to policy.
 * 2) Here is one of many responses from WP:RSN about howstuffworks.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#HowStuffWorks.com  Please address how that response relates to the text cited from this source in this article, specifically wrt the 1c requirement.  Is it not possible to find a higher quality source to cover the text cited from this source?
 * How it relates, the source is meant to cover a breif idea of the topic of wrestling rather than covering the event. As said there it's "basically factual" and it "over simplifys things" which is exactly what its meant for, to simply the nature of wrestling. Besides it I only know to cite a book, but I know of no published material which explains wrestling reliably. None have been popular to come to mind which are considered good besides tons of bios. I could use Bret Hart's biography which I have so it would be possible. He explains wrestling in depth and would obviously be a credible source in the subject as he grew up in the world and his father was a promoter who trained wrestlers.-- Will C  18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I suspect there's a good chance that a case can be made that this source is reliable, but the case does need to be made, with respect to Wikipedia policy, not opinion:  http://www.pwtorch.com/torchhistorypage.html  Please make it.
 * I'm going to cover this and WrestleView the best I can here. WP:PW has always had issues at explaining how sources are reliable, we've yet to convince anyone of a purely reliable source I know of besides published sources such as newspapers. As such it makes it difficult to use the self published idea. However, from what I know WrestleView should be considered reliable for the following. It is well established, as it has been around for over 12 years. They have an established staff that has gone through an application process. For a larger explanation see the one given by GaryColemanFan at Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (2007)/archive2. That is pretty much all I know to say. Although, I have more info elsewhere. As I've seen several times other wrestling sites have mentioned Adam Martin, WrestleView, etc. However, they have not been proven so they are useless to mention. Just to make the argument though, referencing them would suggest WrestleView is seen as reliable, trustworthy, etc in the industry. Not sure if arguing that wrestlers have appeared on WrestleView's "radio network" would help justify, as I believe wrestlers would not be associating with an unreliable publication who can't get their facts straight. I've emailed the webmaster for information on their fact checking system and staff if it is anywhere on the website. I did discover a WrestleView history page, but its blank and supposed to be under renovation which has yet to be completed. Apparently it once existed. As for PWTorch, its a newsletter which has been running since 87. Wade Keller and James Caldwell have worked with the Wrestling Observer, ran by Dave Meltzer who has been interviewed and covered by Slam Sports, mentioned by wrestlers such as Bret Hart in his bio, featured in documentaries like Beyond the Mat, etc. If I can think of any other ways to prove the reliability of these sources I will. I'm looking for information on WrestleView.-- Will C  18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright so I went through the article to see how important WrestleView is through it. Found a few that it could do without so they were removed. Also discovered a good amount of them aren't even by WrestleView themselves, they are repost from Wrestling Observer, PW Torch, and TNA which I believe would make them alright to use. The issue appears to be WrestleView rather than PW Torch. With the explanation given above on why WrestleView is creditable to use as well as now knowing that the information comes directly from known reliable sources, I believe the sourcing issue is solved now.-- Will C  07:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Looking at the HowStuffWorks reference, I see no problem with its use. It's a site that presents things in a "dumbed-down", but not factually incorrect, manner; but here it is simply used to cite a brief aside on the presentation of a professional wrestling event. However, if better sources are required for this, I believe that documentaries such as Beyond the Mat and Catch: The Hold Not Taken offer this same information—however, in a much more protracted manner which would make sourcing content to them slightly more difficult (if time references are required then separate citations would probably have to be made for each clause in the current sentence, as whole scenes in these films discuss one aspect at a time). Using a written work such as the Bret Hart autobiography mentioned above would prove equally problematic, as any of the wrestling autobiographies I've seen mention these things in passing (explaining, say, "works" and "shoots" in one place, "heels" somewhere else, and so on), requiring a simple sentence-long overview to be culled from a large range of individual pages. Perhaps a secondary citation to one of these features, without any specified time references, would serve to reaffirm the accuracy of the initial HowStuffWorks citation, without the need to rely on the larger work for specifics? I'm leaning towards supporting this one if this is clarified—I can dig up the information mentioned but as I no longer own a copy of Beyond the Mat, I'd be unable to provide any specific times, should they be required, and to be frank, I'm not keen on rereading a full novel-length biography to find citations for a single sentence. In all honesty I don't feel that the use of HowStuffWorks is unreliable given the content and context of the citation, however, and should probably stand on its own without any problems. I took far too long to say that, didn't I. GRAPPLE   X  06:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.