Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 02:59, 19 July 2011 [1].

Turning Point (2008)[edit]

Turning Point (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): --WillC 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I nominated it once before and no decision was made. Tried again, didn't pay attention to how many days had went by since closing. It was deleted. Now a few months later I've decided to give it another shot. Comments will be fixed as soon as possible.--WillC 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must have renamed the website recently.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turning Point (2008) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event..." I am sure that it was a normal professional wrestling event, which was broadcast only by PPV.
Don't understand the issue.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15 is a dead link.
Been looking for a replacement. Surprised they removed it myself.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks terribly overlinked. Delink the links that don't need to be linked. See WP:OVERLINK.
Overlinking is usually a problem, but I've made sure nothing is overlinked. At least I do believe nothing is. There is just alot of stuff included. Multiple people, matches, subjects, etc.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The videos all come from the main source, TNA. They have a youtube channel which they promote through their website as well. Makes them reliable to use.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TGilmour (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All above have been completed.--WillC 22:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source for "X Divisions rankings..." table?
    • Gets its information from magizines, dvds, etc according to the project.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The project lists it as "not yet proven", saying "Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm assuming you are using the style guide the project made. Yeah, that thing hasn't been updated since 2008 or 2009 I do believe. We've had a few discussions since then on sources, etc. Anyway, PWH currently only sources two simple things: Match times and Attendance which if I recall is what the project has agreed on, etc.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What part of the project were you trying to point me to above? Also, can you link to some of the more recent discussions on sources that you mention? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I haven't been involved on here in a big capacity since around sometime last year, so any directing would be tough. Search through keywords would be the best thing through the archive at WT:PW. As for project pages, I am referring to the WP:PW style guide. In 2008, there was this big discussion to change the PPV formats. Did such but never really kept the thing updated. I'm not sure when the last thing it was updated, but it is certainly way out of date.--WillC 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the qualifications of the author of this source and similar? What is the site's editorial policy?
    • Adam Martin is a known wrestling editor. Interviewed through various magazines, websites, etc. I do believe he is the admin of WrestleView, owns it. That ref is a redirect from TNA themselves. Written by Bill Banks, who is a writer for TNA's official website. Used it and Pro Wrestling History in Lockdown (2008), another FA.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that specific article is probably okay, but what about others from this site? According to WP:PW, "source is marginally reliable, its use is strictly for television and pay-per-view results". Is that consistent with your use? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I direct to above again. Yeah, mainly just that. Only time it isn't used for just that I do believe is to cover the Scott Hall appearance details.--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods in reference formatting
    • Hmm you the first to ever tell me that. For 3 years I've never thought much about watching for double periods.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a minor point, but still affects consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles or quotes can be corrected for minor MOS issues like hyphens vs dashes
    • If you see any, please direct me too them. If there is a problem, they are invisible to me at this point. Worked on this article so much it has become stale.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example, FN 5 should use an endash in the title instead of a hyphen. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you expound on the editorial policy and author qualifications of this site? When I try to access it, my pop-up blocker goes beserk
    • They have always had alot up pop ups, very annoying they are. I use the website because it is probably the most reliable article the project has. Lets see where to start, the wesbite's main writers are James Caldwell and Wade Keller. Both have been featured in magazines, interviewed, etc. Keller wrote a book. I do believe both have connections to the Wrestling Observer, a respected (I guess, sounds weird saying) wrestling newsletter, website, etc.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include full bibliographic information in both Footnotes and Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confused by above. Someone changed the format to the references when I nominated an article once before and since I've changed all my references to this format.--WillC 14:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can use the footnotes-bibliography format, but in conjunction with shortened citations to avoid redundancy. For example, FN 23 is identical to the first Bibliography entry. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, yeah I kinda did that on purpose. Mainly since I always hear stuff above just not having an inline source. Just wanted to not have to hear things about unsourced statements since that is the only way I can source that info I have found so far. I'll remove one of them if you wish, no difference to me?--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you prefer, you can use shortened citations instead of removing it altogether. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everything else is sourced, only include it in the biblo for the hell of it. Removed it.--WillC 00:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • Several images are of pretty low quality. I replaced the existing Beer Money image with a much higher quality one from their article, as the previous image was one of the lowest quality images I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The A.J. Styles image could use a less blurry replacement, there isn't one in his article, really, although Sting, his opponent in the event, does have some good quality images. The Kurt Angle image also is a tad blurry.
    • We don't get alot of good pictures. I usually just chose the ones which fit and look the best. Which Sting picture are you speaking of?--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images where one person is being pictured but multiple names are listed in the caption need to be clarified. "John Doe (pictured) was pitted against Bob Public..." or something along those lines.
    • I usually do that, must have forgotten it for the Beer Money picture. Just noticed I need to add alt text as well. Guess I better fixed that soon.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I meant the ones that were not of Beer Money, but whatever, really, it's implied that the one listed first is the one depicted. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd assume it would be obvious. Anyone who didn't fail English in school would under the subject in the sentence and direct the picture would be of the subject.--WillC 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FUR for File:Turning Point (2008).jpg isn't suitable for a GA article, let alone an FA article. I'll try and fix it, but someone who knows the subject matter needs to come along behind me and add something respectable into the "Purpose of use" section. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm unusual, the tag for the poster was changed last time this was nominated if I'm not mistaken. Pretty much the purpose is to just illustrate the event. Not sure what needs to be changed. I just write the info. Comes to pictures I left all my knowledge on commons a few years back.--WillC 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll figure something out. I really don't like "To illustrate the event in question" as it's a cop-out, although I've put it in myself when I have no idea what's being depicted but the fur is incomplete. "To illustrate the event in question" is not, however, acceptable for an FA. On second thought, I'm finding it rather hard to justify having the image there in the first place. I know that event posters are the norm, but what does it really add? In this case we have a ton of free images, which cannot be said for things like comic books, movies, television shows. I'll have to think on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Come to think of it there is alot of reasons to have it included. Besides just being a picture to show the event, it is a sign of promotion for the event. Helping to work with the production section. It shows lengths at which the company went to build up the event. I'd say it is quite handy.--WillC 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then something with those points, rather than "To illustrate the event in question", should be in the purpose field of the image description page. Do you want to do it or should I? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I gave it a shot.--WillC 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Works for me. What's important is that there is in fact some semblance of legitimacy for the image being included and the FUR isn't generic. You've met the requirements. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Don't believe the hyphen in "late-2008" is needed. There's also one in Reception.
  • Background: "In October 2008, three events were rescheduled: Genesis, Final Resolution, and Turning Point. Turning Point...". Try not to have the repetition from one sentence to another, if possible (it's tough in this case).
    • Added some words.--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while a Final Resolution event was announced for some time in December." Don't think "a" or "event" is needed; "while Final Resolution..." sounds nice and tight.
  • Storylines: "Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or heroes in the scripted events that build tension and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches." With past tense ("were"), "build" should be "built" and "culminate" should be "culminated". Also, I think "into" would be better served as "with".
  • Reception: Try not to have a sentence begin with a number, like the first sentence of this section. A simple addition of "A total of" would fix the issue, though it is wordier that way. Or you could just spell out the number.
  • "which was a .5 above the 2007 event's rating of 6.5 by Chris Sokol." Remove "a" as an excess word?
  • "The event was released on DVD on March 24, 2009 as apart of the 'TNA Wrestling: Cross The Line Vol. 2' box set". "apart" should be two words.
  • Aftermath: "This time the rules were different than at their previous at Turning Point". Previous match? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the Eight Man Tag Team match at Final Resolution was promoted as a title defense by Sting against AJ. Anyone from AJ's team got the win, AJ became champion. So it was Sting's and AJ's second match.--WillC 06:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant that a word should be added to the sentence, as in "than at their previous match at Turning Point." Right now the sentence isn't making it clear what the previous item was. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know what? I just deleted that part, not adding much anyway. I had no idea how to fix it, so just went ahead and made it short and to the point. I hope you agree?--WillC 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In section "Results", substitute "Times" with "Duration" TGilmour (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone have any more comments they'd like to state? If so please post them below.--WillC 13:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Turning_Point_(2008)/archive2&oldid=1089083177"