Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/TNA World Heavyweight Championship/1

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. I'm sorry that noone has closed this reassessment sooner. There isn't a sufficient review here to list the article. It needs to be renominated at GAN, but comments here will be added to the article history to inform future reviewers. Geometry guy 00:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for reassessment because I disagree with it being failed. I feel it passes the Good Article criteria. The main reason it seems to me it was failed was disagrees between myself and the reviewer. I was unaware of the feels of the reviewer when it came to my disagreements. I usually like to discuss changes first or explain certain things within the article to outside parties so they get the full picture. The article is fully reliably sourced with only a few minor problems that have come to my attention which I plan to address very shortly. I wrote a previous good article on a subject similar to this one, so I based most of this article's expansion off of it. The history of this title is an interesting one at that. So any questions regarding its history and the many many many many many previous discussions over the history which led to its current form, do not be afraid to ask.-- Will C  14:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. My first thought on reading the article was "this is very short, maybe it is failing broadness". The review itself seems fine, going into sufficient detail, but not being unreasonably demanding. I would  Support fail at this time , as i think the article needs expanding, the spun out list of winners should be merged back in, and the lead should be rewritten to summarise the important points of the article, rather than acting as a section in itself. Sorry!YobMod 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the list of reigns article would be split back out at 10 reigns, so that would be useless. I had a belt designs section within the article, but there was a user who thought it was OR because it was based off of an image. I'll figure out what else I can add.-- Will C  12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no guidleine for auto-splitting out lists when they reach 10 items (indeed, FL now has guidelines against this when the parent article is short). eg. I see at FLR there is a list of 15 items about to be delisted for being an unecessary fork.YobMod 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The project agreed that at 10 reigns, a list of champions article could be cut off. I'm in the process of making two seperate topics. One for all the champions and one for all the titles. So the list of champions article will be taken to FL as soon as it gets to 10 reigns. I am also in the process of lengthening this article. So by the end of today. It should be in depth enough.-- Will C  16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am done for now with expansion. I feel it is fit the criteria better now.-- Will C  08:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although i still don't think being able to stand as a list automatically means the list should be separated, i think the recent expansion of the article makes it GA quality. In the future, i would expect the summary style section of "Reigns" will get longer too.YobMod 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that section will get longer.-- Will C  01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)