Talk:Hard Justice (2005)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 15:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC) and MayhemMario‎ (talk · contribs) 15:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

File:Tnahardjustice2005.jpg needs a better rational then presented. Look at File:2008JudgmentDay.jpg as an example.
- Current rational was taken from File:Turning Point (2008).jpg, which was placed in when Turning Point (2008) was nominated for FAC by image reviewers in order to pass that area of the criteria.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the infobox "date" needs a {{start date}} template.
- Don't really see the point, but done.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotless articles don't need a point ;-)
This sentence in the lead (second para) I believe is missing a word TNA held a Twenty-Man Gauntlet for the Gold to become number one contender to the NWA World Heavyweight Championship.
- Threw in "the" to clarify.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence in the lead (third para) Jason Clevett of the professional wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer felt the event was the "most entertaining pay per view from TNA since January's Final Resolution." Why this statement out of all the other statements/reviews this show got? Seems to be bordering WP:NPOV. If the show received more positive reviews then negative, then you should say "Hard Justice received generally positive reception" or likewise.
- Its the only statement regrading the overall event. The rest speak of the matches, not the overall event. WP:PW never been one to add whether a event got more positive or negative reviews. I for one feels it is WP:OR on the editors part to make that call. Rather just let the information speak for itself. There is no source to cover said statement.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Chris Candido, who passed away on April 28, 2005" needs to be re-worded per WP:EUPHEMISM
- Fixed--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the same sentence "... to a blood clot from a surgery he had to fix an injury sustained at TNA's previous PPV event Lockdown on April 24, 2005." Does not make any sense, mostly because of "he had to fix an injury sustained at TNA's ..."
- Cut back some of the sentence.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence (in Storylines) "The match was hyped" seems a bit WP:OR and WP:NPOV.
- Switched to "promoted".--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many sentences that start with "On the [date] episode of Impact!" - needs a variety.
- I only count 9 in the background, but cut it down to 4.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the April 1 episode ofImpact! something is wrong ;-)
- Fixed, as well as the April 22 issue.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"using his signature maneuver the Dead Sea Drop" source that verifies that this is his signature move?
- Its kinda common sense considering it has been given a name to work with the character. Plus the review should cover it being his "finisher" so to speak.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's common sense to fans not to WP:PCR "provide context to the uniformed reader" this is not WWE Wikipedia, its Wikipedia. Secondly, I didn't know, and I graduated with honors so what are you trying to say, just because you know its true, doesn't make it true.
Common sense in a way that its been given a special name, not biased towards a fan. Why would it have a significant name if it was not a signature maneuver in that vein of common sense. The move's official wrestling name is a "forward somersault three-quarter facelock jawbreaker". Even some wrestling fans would not know what this means as well as ones unfamiliar with the information. As such has been discussed several times at WP:PW, where it was agreed to just give enough information in order to get the point across, rather than fall in the universe. Wondering whether if something is a signature maneuver or not is deterring off the subject matters. I'd figure good faith would be in this instance.--WillC 09:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN#7, FN#20 and FN#26 why is SLAM! Sports: Wrestling italicized?
- Because they are in the "work" parameter of the reference template cite web. The site is owned by the Canadian Online Explorer, but the work is done by the Slam Sports sector. COE is the publisher.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it, only printed publications are allowed to be in italics. Please use " " to force this.
Its within the template. They are in italics due to the template and I tried your suggestion, with no change in the area. I went and read the template parameter description. Its states the work is the name of the website, not exactly the publisher. Its set up as such and apparently as is the format of the template it is to be in italics.--WillC 09:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try using " ", this code forces it. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it twice, it didn't work either time for me.--WillC 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN#11 and FN#12 why is Total Nonstop Action Wrestling italicized?
- Same as above, however the information is being publisher by WrestleView, but was done by TNA.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above.
See above--WillC 09:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a reliable source?
- Its the retailer selling the dvd of the event. All it covers is the release date, as such with several articles before it, it covers minor easily obtainable information.--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RS Amazon.com is NOT a reliable source, please find a different one.
RS says nothing regrading information obtaining to a releasing of a product that I can find. This wouldn't regard a self-published source or user database source. As with Destination X (2005), Lockdown (2005), Final Resolution (January 2008), the FA Lockdown (2008), etc using of a retailer to source a release date of a DVD seems to be considered passable. I shall look for a replacement but it seems to be agreed this is considered exceptionable.--WillC 09:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a FA article can save you here buddy. Please read this discussion on my previous GAR where an experience GAN/FAC reviewer explained why Amazon.com is NOT a RS and should never be used. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it as I can't find a replacement source at this time.--WillC 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FN#27 make space between Prowrestling and About.com
- Done--WillC 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing all concerns will pass article. Congrats, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and passing the article.--WillC 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]