Wikipedia:Peer review/Lockdown (2008)/archive2

===Lockdown (2008)===
 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to make it an FA. I need to get all the small things fixed. It is a little long but if you notice what type of matches took place and that it is TNA's third main ppv it is near impossible to get it smaller than it is. All the sources are reliable to my knowledge. They are PWTorch, Slam, Wrestling Observer, and WrestleView. I would like the references checked, if it is well written, if everything makes sense, and if anything can be taken out (besides background for matches).

Thanks, Will  C  00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Lockdown (2008)/archive2.


 * Before I fully comment I just want to point something out you said. You state that because its TNA's third main PPV, it needs big length. I sort of disagree, SummerSlam (2003) was one of WWE's main ppv's and featured a caged match up and is way shorter. Another thing is, there is nothing wrong with writing every feud, but most feuds don't have buildup and shouldn't be added.-- S R X  00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well remember every match took place insides a steel cage on this PPV. And I'm not saying just because it is number three to Slammiversary and Bound for Glory it should be long. But in the xscape match you had eliminations, then in cuffed in the cage you had 11 eliminations, then in Lethal Lockdown you had entrances. I gave you a link to the ppv, I found it on Dailymontin the other day. If you have time watch it. It is a pretty good ppv, you can see alot of things happened that are notable and I tried my best to only mention the more notable things.-- Will C  01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008
Still needs some work, in my view. The most important advice I can give you is to refer to the structure of the most recent wrestling FAs. If something sets a new standard, that is what all subsequent articles in a particular category must shoot for. Best of luck.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First thing I noticed is that the background and event sections are much bigger than the recently passed wrestling FAs. I urge you to reconsider this. In my time at FAC, I've noticed that wrestling articles struggle to attract reviewers who aren't wrestling fans. I fear that a longer article might turn off reviewers.
 * Well the main reason they are long is I feel if I don't explain what the other matches meant then I'm leaving out important information. Like the other matches were filler when they weren't. They each got time and considerable build to each one that are explained in the background. I tried to mention only the important stuff as well. Now I'll try to cut the event down.
 * Problematic sources: prowrestlinghistory.com, wrestlingobserver.com (I don't believe the FAC source-checkers regard Meltzer as a reliable source), 411mania.com (the author isn't football's Larry Csonka, right? Just curious.), and prowrestling.about.com.
 * I'm not sure what to say. Just the The Great American Bash and SummerSlam were pasted with those sources. Larry Csonka I have no idea who he is. I just know he works for 411Mania and Wrestling Observer.com.
 * You may wind up with a problem having two fair-use images when this becomes a candidate. Keeping in mind there are plenty of pictures, consider losing the DVD image and just going with the poster.
 * I can get rid of the DVD image. Though that and the poster are the only fair-use images.
 * Some prose checks. This is from background: "These matches were planned with predetermined outcomes by TNA's creative staff and feature wrestlers playing a character for the entertainment of the audience." The correct tense for this is "featured".
 * Fixed
 * In the team match, Devon Hughes has one bracket too many.
 * That is there because Devon was apart of Team 3D and it was better than having parenthesis in parenthesis.
 * "made his debut in the promotion at their November pay-per-view, Genesis in 2007." Last part of this is quite awkward. Try November 2007 event; I think that would work.
 * Fixed.
 * As I get to the end of the section, I must agree with SRX. It is long for my tastes. I think it would be better to keep the focus on the main event matches, and maybe one undercard match. If you want to summarize the remaining feuds in a paragraph, that would be fine too.
 * Event, Preliminary matches: This whole section has the feel of older wrestling FACs. The ones that have passed recently have fewer details about the matches. Reviewers will most likely be expecting that out of new candidates.
 * I'll try to cut that down.
 * "The next match was Queen of the Cage Match..." Should be "was a".
 * It must be a typo.
 * Don't have all capital letters in the references, even if that's how it's presented. If they are that way, just have the first letter of each word capitalized. I don't know why authors would have all caps in any case.
 * Oh that is because I copied the names from the sites instead of writing them. I'll fix that.
 * Okay, thanks for the comments.-- Will C  02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried my best with the event section. I see somethings I can remove but I feel that are notable enough to keep. But I removed 880 bytes from the event section. It looks smaller but now all the matches say is what match was next, who was eliminated and who entered. Just simple things really. The best summery I believe I can make.-- Will C  03:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
So far I've only read the Background section, so these comments are limited to that.
 * General: the section is overlong, with in my view far too much detail - I just couldn't keep up. My understanding of the function of the section is that it should should prepare us for the main event story by introducing the main characters and outlining the feuds which are being scripted. It seemingly started out well enough, but became increasingly confusing - all these fight details left my head spinning. So please try to shorten and simplify the section. In addition, there ae some specific points needing attention.
 * "kayfabe": this odd word is linked, but the link article is impossible to understand so I still don't know what the term means. Can a simple explanation be inserted in the text?
 * Fixed
 * There's a bracket mix-up in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph. Unsurprising - these multi-bracketed lists are the curse of wrestling articles. This is what you have: "(Tomko [Travis Tomko], A.J. Styles [Allen Jones], Team 3D, [Brother Ray [Mark LoMonaco] and Brother Devon [Devon Hughes]] and James Black])". Apart from the bracket confusion, why the two "ands" at the end of he list?
 * Actually it isn't a mistake. I was showing who Team 3D were, Brother Ray and Brother Devon and I placed "]]" on purpose.
 * Well, like I said, these multi-bracketed lists are a curse and make the article impossible to read. Why not try a different approach, e.g: "The other main rivalry heading into Lockdown was between Team Cage and Team Tomko. Team Cage consisted of  Christian Cage (William Reso), Kevin Nash, Rhino (Terry Gerin), Sting (Steve Borden) and Matt Morgan, while Team Tomko was made up of Tomko (Travis Tomko), A.J. Styles (Allen Jones), James Storm (James Black) and the Team 3D pairing of Brother Ray (Mark LoMonaco) and Brother Devon (Devon Hughes)"  That leaves you with only one kind of bracket, and at least makes the sentence readable.  This simplified format, which avoids "[]" altogether, could be applied elsewhere in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to what you said.
 * "...the scripted return of Sting". Return from what - are we assumed to know?
 * Fixed
 * What it now says in "...advertising Sting's scripted return to in ring competition". Should this be "in-ring" (with hyphen)? Still no indication of what he was returning from. An earlier retirement? An injury? etc etc
 * I fixed the in-ring and explained in better detail.
 * The rest of the section gave me a bit of a headache; as indicated, I think the section is overlong and overdetailed. One thing I did notice towards the end is the reference to someone's "dad". This is an encyclopedia article, not an informal report, and the introduction of colloquial terms gives the wrong tone. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I will try and come back soon with further comments on the rest of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did a little copyediting to the background. Hopefully it is a little better. Not sure what needed to be removed and what didn't.-- Will C  22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on the Event section
 * Still with the Background section, I had some difficulty with the chronological sequemce. For example, "Their scripted rivalry began when Tomko turned on Cage..." Clarify when this happened. Also, "Tomko later announced..." When, exactly? And: "His teammates were..." His teammates for what? And shouldn't it be "his teammates would be..."? I'm preparing a few comments on the Event section which I will add later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, their rivalry is explained by saying it started at Against All Odds. Should I explain what Against All Odds is?-- Will C  06:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First sentence should include the event name, not just "pay per view", e.g "...was the first match of Lockdown (2008) to air live on pay per view".
 * Creed-DT is not a helpful link
 * In what way?-- Will C  04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A sentence cannot begin with "Followed by..." Perhaps: "This was followed by..."
 * It is not right to link the whole descriptive phrase rolled him over on his back for the three count. The link belongs on the single term "roll-up" at the sentence’s end. There are other examples of this sort of linking.
 * Anybetter?
 * The word "turnbuckle" is not common English. Most non-wrestling readers won’t know what it means. Therefore link or explain
 * The "Queen of the Cage" paragraph has two extended linked phrases. If these are descriptions of acknowledged wrestling moves, name the move and link on that. At the moment I’ve no idea what the phrases are linking to.
 * Not sure what you're meaning but I made a change or two.
 * The winners of the Cuffed in the Cage match get a future World Tag Team Championship match. Against whom?
 * "Rellick and Reign intimidated him..." Clarify if this was real or play-acting.
 * I think the extended description of the multiple cuffing is unnecessary and could be much reduced, especially as this is apparently a warm-up event.
 * Well would like me to just name who the first was and who the last was? Then in the middle say the order of eliminations went as follows: example, example, etc: or something like that. Well the match was a arm-up but the event is the company's third major ppv. It goes Bound for Glory, Slammiversary, and then Lockdown.

Sorry I can't give any more time to this but I hope my comments are helpful.
 * They are, thank you very much! I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to read a give ideas for improvement.-- Will C  04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

SRX

 * Comment


 * This will take a long time, possibly a month if it keeps in the pace, I would recommend following the suggestions and changes you made above to the matches and apply it to the rest of the matches and trim them down as much as you can. I will check it again once you are done because of time constraints in real life on my part.-- S R X  01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this is taking a long time. I'll do a copyedit really quick and have it ready by tomorrow. I would like to speed this up aswell so I can have this up for FAC by the end of the week or sometime really soon.-- Will C  02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm finished with the Event, Aftermath, and Reception. Hopefully we can finished today. Also is there anyway I can get this peer review closed before Saturday?-- Will C  16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not rush this process Will, the only way is for you to nominate it for FAC and then you have to close it, see WP:PR for instructions. I recommend waiting for NWO's FAC to finish so there wont be 2 wrestling FAC's up. S R X  17:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rushing it mainly because in this next week I have alot to do. Around Sunday I have to start the long hall for my school work. I have to be at alot of things for my church next week and plus Monday I have to write the event for BFG IV. I also plan on having all the TNA ppv articles I'm working on done. I'm just trying to speed it up so I can focus on other stuff. I'm not trying to rush you, I'm just trying to figure out how I can close this before a week. I know how to close the review, but can I close it before a week?-- Will C  17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can close it any time if you nominate it for FAC, see the prose at WP:PR.-- S R X  17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I haven't read that in so long and I just went and got something to eat. Well the article has went under a copyedit. It is all read for comments. I have a way if you want me to cut the Lethal Lockdown match somemore.-- Will C  18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)