Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [1].

Lockdown (2008) edit

Nominator(s): User:Wrestlinglover

previous FAC (00:39, 20 October 2008)

I am nominating this article for FA status because, well I want it to be an FA. I have no good reason to nominate it. Since its last FAC, I believe all of the problems have been taken care of. The sourcing problems has been resolved. WrestleView was a big problem in the last review. All the sources from WrestleView have been removed besides two. They only source minor things that need a source. It has had a copyedit by someone who has nothing to do with the Professional wrestling project and has never read the article before. It has been cut down a great deal. Going from 44 kilobytes to 39 kilobytes. The prose issue, I believe, has also been taken care of, but I'll let you, the reviewers, decide that. If there is any problems with the article I will take care of them immediately. Just name them and I'll get right on them.--WillC 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I originally supported this nomination after a lengthy review of the prose to comply with WP:MOS, WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, and WP:PLOT. I would still like to see, however, the women's cage match cut out because IMO it did nothing to promote the event by itself.--S R X 15:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved long discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)

Comments - Overall, it's in much better shape than at the start of the first FAC. In a full reading, I still found a few nagging prose concerns, though. Not too much, and it shouldn't take long to resolve them.

~~Confusing sentence in Background: "On the same episode, Joe declared that he would quit TNA forever if he did not win at Lockdown in the script."~~
- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Typo with the fix: "declar".~~ Giants2008 (17-14) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope I fixed it.--WillC 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"with their teams being referred to as Team Cage and Team Tomko." This is a "noun-plus-ing" structure, a hard-to-spot prose error. Try a semi-colon, then "their teams were referred to as Team Cage and Team Tomko."
- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Semi-colon done, but the rest of it is unchanged. The quoted part was my primary concern and is still unfixed.~~ Giants2008 (17-14) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe I got it this time.--WillC 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~"After their match at Destination X, Sharmell returned an assaulted Roode and Banks with a leather strap." Typo.~~
- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comma after "Sharmell kicked Rhode in the groin and jumped out of the way."~~
- Fixed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reception: "During the week of July 19, it fell from position number five to position number twelve, though remaining on the chart for the second week in a row." How about "though it remained on the chart for the second consecutive week."?
- Changed.--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that this is at least my fourth review of the article, so I'm familiar with the writing by now. Giants2008 (17-14) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a couple notes under responses above. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got them. I must have not been paying attention.--WillC 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{cite episode}} to add references to the specific episodes of Impact in the background section. aye matthew ✡ 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask why? What is wrong with Cite web?
- And remove the women's cage match. aye matthew ✡ 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL, see the talk page of this nomination for Will's reasoning.--S R X 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    - It's not notable, I'm still neutral the article has some problems that because of WP:ILIKEIT, are not being fixed. aye matthew ✡ 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it not notable?--WillC 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sections is too long, and it's the least notable section. aye matthew ✡ 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still don't see how it is not notable. The match happened at the event and got almost three months of build to create a feud between the two teams.--WillC 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I removed the match.--WillC 01:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I know you don't agree with the removal of that match, but I do feel that the article is better for it. With my concerns about summary style and prose alleviated, my primary remaining issue is the two questionable sources (Pro Wrestling History.com and Wrestling Observer.com). If these can be resolved, I'll be ready to support. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wrestling Observer should only have one reference in there and it is a review of the event. I mention in the only version why the Observer is reliable. Pro Wrestling History is only maginable reliable. Though it only sources attendance and match times. Maybe this helps.--WillC 04:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help, Wrestling Observer is operated by Dave Meltzer, a prominent professional wrestling reviewer and reporter, in this case, his website is being referenced for a critical reception versus sourcing important information. Pro Wrestling History is not reliable as a whole, in this case, its not referencing anything major or important like results, but instead the attendance and match times, which can be seen and heard on videos of the event (which is where this source gets its information). If PWH is still sketchy, {{cite episode}} might work better here then.--S R X 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all of the facts cited by the two questionable websites could be provided from the broadcast. That's probably the best option. Primary sources should be kept to a minimum if possible, but I don't see any problem with using them in this case. The facts aren't controversial, and a broadcast or DVD reference would be more reliable than what is currently used. At this point, why leave any doubts? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not all here today, exactly what are you asking me to do? TNA never announces how many people they have in atttendance, nor during the live event or on the DVD. I can remove the Wrestling Observer ref if you want.--WillC 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying that you should remove the PWH references and cite the content with {{cite episode}}, thus citing the broadcast. The WO can stay since its used for reception and criticism purposes.--S R X 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But the times nor attendance is ever stated. TNA has no mention of time length in the DVD or anywhere. What is the point of citing something that does not have that information? The Wrestling Observer ref has nothing to do with reception.--WillC 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either do more research or remove it from the infobox or wherever is is mentioned.--S R X 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WO cites were replaced. Do WrestleView or PWTorch have the match times or attendance? I'll probably end up supporting it anyway since the facts aren't controversial, but I want to ensure that the use of PWH is needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PWTorch has the times but tend to roundoff. They don't give the attendance though. WrestleView does not give the times.--WillC 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Support - The questioned references aren't citing anything contentious, so I'm willing to accept them as is. Finally, I think that it's good enough to meet the standards, though I admit to reading this too much recently to have much distance from it. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per prior support before restart.[2] The article has even improved since then. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image rereview - Everything still looks good. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.