Talk:Sacrifice (2008)/GA1

GA Review

It's going to take me some time to review the article itself, compare it to its peers and go through the wrestling project's guidelines, as I'm not familiar with wrestling at all, but in the meantime there are two things to look at:

The Samoa Joe image has a pretty nasty looking tag on it (which I've never seen before) saying that the information contained in the template is unreliable and that the image should not be used until it is dealt with. I'd suggest reaching out to other wrestling project members or someone/somewhere that deals with images and fixing it. One thing that is for sure is that I can't pass the article with that image as it is.
- Okay, I'll remove it I had the same problem with that image in Lockdown (2008), I expected it to be fixed by the time this went up for review. Also thanks for reviewing it and doing a copyedit, I haven't had alot of time to prepare it for a review really.--WillC 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If reception information is bacon then review scores are the rind - some like to trim them off altogether, others think they add flavour so leave them in. Nobody wants to be served a rind sandwich. The billboard info is fine, the scores themselves are fine, but actual commentary is completely missing - how did the reviewer find the matches and why is that the case? The only reliable commentary (as opposed to numbers) is from the Canadian sports site (and it isn't being used yet), the customer ratings are the kind of thing I'd delete immediately, a thousand average Joes clicking on a rating does not stack up to relevant, reliable commentary. You're the wrestling peeps, you know which publications, websites and reliable blogs etc. cover wrestling, are none of them reviewing or discussing this event or the subsequent DVD release? As a bare minimum I would like to see one other reliable source of commentary here, though more would be good. I'll continue posting suggestions here, thanks for what you've done with the article so far. Someoneanother 17:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reception section is a recent add, the Amazon.com and CD Universe stuff was added to get a view of what the fans thought nothing really more, you would have to ask User:SRX about it to understand more.--WillC 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, but considering there's a review of it here in The Sun, a blog review by another Sun journalist here, it's not like there's nothing to build some actual feedback with. To me, reception is one of the most important aspects of any entertainment article, it roots the subject within its own timeframe and lets readers see just how the subject was perceived. Admittedly The Sun is a tabloid, but in this context it seems fair game, it's certainly further up the reliability pole than Amazon customers. Someone another 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See what you mean about reception being a new thing, however expectations do shift on WP and if there is commentary available there is every chance that articles lacking it may be called into question further down the line. I've contacted SRX so let's see what his view is. Someone another 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a new thing to this project. Just recently everything has been changed. Articles are being wrote an entirely new way and more and more stuff is being added. Also to give you a heads up most articles have pay-per-view buyrates and how much money the company made off of the event, I can't place that in this article since TNA is not a publicly traded company. They do not release that type of information. It is rare that they do.--WillC 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further:

The lead does not follow the wrestling project's manual of style, as the first paragraph does not feature information on who starred in the event, which is one of the reasons it is two short paragraphs with a long paragraph sandwiched in the middle.
- The project mainly lends towards World Wrestling Entertainment. That is for WWE because they have 3 tv shows. TNA has one and not as many wrestlers as WWE has, it would be unneeded. TNA has no storyline expansion.
In the third paragraph of Preliminary Matches: "It was back and forth between the two teams from there on." That seems like an empty statement, can it be removed?
- Yes.
Fifth paragraph of the same section: "The match high energy throughout the match," huh?
- Sorry, I'll fix that. Maybe I wrote it a little better, I'm not sure.
Last paragraph of the same section: "even though Styles shoulders were visibly seen to not be down.[25] After the match, Smashing Pumpkins singer Billy Corgan was shown in attendance.[23]" Styles' shoulders needs an apostrophe like that <. 'Visibly seen' is stating the same thing twice, "not be down" is a little clumsy, could you reword it and refer to his shoulders not being pinned to the mat or whatever the appropriate term is, please?
- I've worked on it.

There'll be more, still going through. Someone another 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Main Event Matches:"but was unsuccessful as Laveaux used Love's changing run against her" Should that be charging run?
- Sorry, I've read the article a billion times, I must not have noticed that. Oh this is emprassing.
Second paragrpah: "They then fought for a moment until Guerrero moved the table and placed Devine on top of it. Ascended to the top rope and performed a diving double foot stomp to Devine through the table." Who ascends to the top rope? I'm assuming it's Guerrero but I don't want to guess.
- It is, I'll make it more clear.

There's more to do, such as checking the references, but I've been through the article and done some tweaking. Someone another 19:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- All the references are reliable besides Online World of Wrestling and PWWEW which I mean to change soon, also gerweck but they just haven't been found reliable is what I mean. They're alright to use but there is no proof to them being reliable at this point.--WillC 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually found more reliable sources which can replace them, or do some of the other sources cover the same info? It would make life a lot easier if they were replaced. Gerweck seems prolific but I too couldn't find anything which substantiates him being a recognised journalist. Someone another 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can replace the OWOW and PWWEW refs with Slam reviews for the Impacts. The gerweck I can replace with sources already in the article. I'll get on that here in a little bit.--WillC 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'd make things so much easier, thanks! The article's been stuck at GAN for over a month, so you might be glad to get shot of the nomination, but there's a week for things to be patched up so if you want to enjoy your weekend etc. there's no big rush. BTW, don't worry about little tweaks being made and copyediting - that's what GA's for, everyone fails to see these things when they're >this close< to an article. What I would like to see is the customer ratings being replaced with some of that material from the two Sun writers, but we'll wait until it's been discussed to see if that's an option. Once that's settled, I'll put the article on hold with the few remaining things to be sorted, so there'll be light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks for explaining the TNA funding info, there's a lot to take in for an outsider. Someone another 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per request on my talk page, to be honest, the reception section is not great. See the featured article SummerSlam (2003)#Reception for a better reception section because it has more than just ratings/customer reviews. I do understand however, that TNA does not release information as such but I think other type of information for their revenue can be found.--S _R X 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well from looking at summerslam's, Sacrifice and it aren't much different. I have no good source that the Impact Zone holds 900. TNA does not have a section for it on their website. The event had an attendance of 900 which is believed to be the maximum capacity of the arena. TNA has not released buy rates or how much money they made from the event. So what I've placed is really all I can unless I place some info from the UK Sun.--WillC 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should attempt to search for the information, the way it is now is really dull and is mostly more about the opinions and perspective of others and not hard real factual information.S _R X 03:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no hard factual information. The Impact Zone is owned by Universal, they say TNA can't charge for admission to its Impacts or PPV events. If TNA did sale out the arena then they made no money off of it because no one bought tickets. TNa does not release buyrates. I can find estimates but only up till Final Resolution and their by 411Mania. Everything that is released is in the reception. I have no good source for the Impact Zone's holdings and it would make no difference since TNA does not charge admission.--WillC 05:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what you've done so far, and thanks for SRX for taking the time to respond. I'm placing the article on hold until the following two are dealt with:

The three less reliable/desirable sources are replaced with cross-referencing from more reliable sources.
Phil Allely's piece in the Sun is used to expand the first paragraph of reception, it doesn't need to be disproportionally large compared to the other information but it would add some much needed commentary.

If more information regarding revenue etc. becomes available (books, magazines, things you least expect can creep out all of a sudden), then adding it to this and any other articles it covers would be a good ongoing project. I don't like the customer scores one bit, but they seem to have been accepted as the norm in wrestling articles and a discussion about replacing them with more appropriate commentary should therefore take place at the project and the wider community, not in a single GAN. Likewise, more emphasis on reception in general would be something I'd advise looking at, for future-proofing and giving readers a rounder picture. Someone another 11:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will have these finished by the end of the day. I'm busy at the moment.--WillC 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To use the piece from The Sun, all that's needed is a summary of what the journalist had to say on the event and accredit those views to that journo, IE "journalist of The Sun (wikilink the paper) stated that..". As per the standard in reviews, he has summarized his opinions in the last few sentences of the piece, specifically: "The PPV did what it said it would and lived up to all the promises I mentioned at the start of this article." and "It was however still marred by TNA’s reliance on run-ins and interference". Summarizing that is all it takes. Someone another 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wanted to be sure because I didn't want to summarize the wrong things from the review. I'll get on that right now.--WillC 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright the sources are changed. The reception has added the Sun article. Now I want you to know that the sun part isn't exactly what you said but I can change it. It is the first draft.--WillC 04:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a tweak at it, hope that's OK. Someone another 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me.--WillC 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the article has no stability problems, is neutral, images are fine, it's well-referenced and the scope is fine. Long story short, Sacrifice 2008 is now a Good Article, congratulations and thanks for your efforts throughout the process. Someone another 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing it and passing it. I'm grateful.--WillC 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]