Talk:ROH World Television Championship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick-fail assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. -
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. -
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. -
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. - You're fortunate this wasn't reviewed sooner, because it would have been quick-failed under this point if reviewed before the first tournament was held. As is, obviously further updates will often be required, but that doesn't qualify the article for failure under this point. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Lot of rough patches

   • but the semi-finals and finals were stalled by severe weather conditions. Recommend "postponed" ahead of "stalled." Would just be clearer.

   Removed from lead. Was significant when tournament was stopped, now that it has concluded not really needed in the lead.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • All title changes have occurred at ROH–promoted events thus far. The article goes on to indicate that the title has had only one champion, so there haven't been any title changes yet.

   Kind of a formatting thing. Is in all championship articles that have been expanded recently. Removed, will place back in once a new champion is established.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • There have been a total of 1 reign by 1 wrestler. Is this truly necessary, and if it is, WP:MOSNUM indicates that numbers less than 10 should be spelled out unless they begin a sentence. Also, for as long as this is singular, there has been

   Like above, copy and paste formatting. Consistency with other articles. Fixed--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • The first champion was Eddie Edwards. This is past tense?

   Re-worded--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • The creation of the ROH World Television Championship was announced via ROH's official website, ROH Wrestling.com The website is (rightly) given as an external link, so why do we need it here? It looks odd being written out this way, too (capitalization and spacing).

   I thought it was significant at the time. Removed--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • An eight-man single elimination tournament is planned to determine the inaugural champion Hasn't this already happened?

   Result of not being able to update it. Fixed--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • An eight-man single elimination tournament is planned to determine the inaugural champion, with its inception being on February 5 and will cease on February 6, 2010 at The Arena in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the tapings of ROH's television program Ring of Honor Wrestling. This should be at least two, and possibly three, sentences. ...determine the inaugural champion. It will begin on... and maybe ...Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These events were recorded for broadcast on ROH's television program...

   Fixed hopefully.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • The tournament will span six episodes; the participants and brackets for the tournament have yet to be announced. Yet they appear later in the article. ???

   Poor updating strikes again.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • ROH President Cary Silkin was quoted as saying "We’ve been talking about adding a secondary championship for some time. Not only will this give the athletes of Ring of Honor another tremendous goal to work towards, it will also give our great partner, HDNet, a championship that is sure to be defended on the television program. We’re happy to publicly give thanks to HDNet for giving us the chance to add this title to the television show..." "Was quoted as saying" are dead wood words. Just use "said." Why is the quotation in italics? It also, as do all quotations, needs a conspicuous source. Is Cary Silkin a likely future article?

   I always learned that quotes should be in italics, habit. Yeah, he is the owner of the promotion and appeared on camera. Fixed--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • On February 5, 2010 at the first set of tapings of Ring of Honor Wrestling, all four matches of round one were held. In the first bout, Steen defeated Titus. Edwards gained the victory over Cabana in bout two. The final two bouts pitted Delirious against Richards, and Generico against King. Richards and King won their respective encounters. While I by no means suggest letting the table stand in place of prose, this stretch sounds really hokey. I'd suggest simply stating who won as a rote list (Steen, Edwards, Richards, and King won their first-round matches or something like that). At least, work through the repetition of "bout."

   Redid entire section.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • "Tapings" occurs numerous times in the article. Not sure if it's necessarily improper or substandard, but it just sounds odd. Is it a singular noun or a plural noun? Events taking place on February 5, 2010 and February 6, 2010 are both referred to, on their own, as "tapings," (On February 5, 2010 at the first set of tapings of Ring of Honor Wrestling and The final two rounds were to be held at the second set of tapings on February 6, 2010) but shouldn't events of one night be a singular noun?

   They tape multiple episodes of the show during these times. Around 3 episodes per night, so it really is tapings.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   B. MOS compliance:

   • From the lead: With the announcement of ROH World Television Championship, ROH re-introduced television championships back to national television. This isn't really addressed in the body of the article. What is a television championship? Why has it been absent from national television? Why is this significant? Certainly you don't need to rewrite any parent articles that already cover this, but a short explanation would help. The #section link on Championship (professional wrestling) gives Another common variation is the Television Championship, which involves more frequent title defenses as well as the stipulations that the belt can only change hands on television (as opposed to pay-per-view or unbroadcast "house" shows) within a 15-minute time limit. If this is true of this particular title, it would definitely be helpful to include.

   TV Titles don't really have rules anymore. The only known TV Titles still going around to my knowledge is this one, the CZW Wired TV Championship, the OVW Television Championship, and a few other indy TV Titles. But really the only national tv title is the ROH one now since they are the only one of the bunch on tv regularly today nationally. Add the fact, that was really one editor's opinion. The history of tv titles in general would be better suited for the main article and not this one, since it is really just a rose by another name...a regular championship with a special name. I just placed that in for a DYK and kept it since it is interesting and I have a reliable source to back it up with. Expansion of that would be difficult and really leading away from the point of the title. ROH haven't stated any rules either that it follows.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Why are the quotes in italics? Why are such long direct quotes given? Is James Caldwell the only critic to offer commentary on the title? If so, then I'm not sure the title is notable, as the other sources are all primary.

   See above. The title is certainly notable. Writers in general do not comment much on titles to begin with besides importance. ROH is the third top promotion in the US. Not many sites publish information on them and add on WP:PW only has a few reliable sources. Those being PWTorch, Wrestling Observer, Slam Sports, and WrestleView. Currently, the article has a few more third party sites added.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • Frankly, the citations are a mess. The first, for example, lists "PWTorch" as the publisher, but this is actually the work - what is being published. Scroll down and you see "(c) 1999-2010 TDH Communications Inc. - All rights reserved. " Therefore, TDH Communications Inc. is actually the publisher (and it's this that shows that the source meets WP:RS, in spite of the incessant pop-up ads).

   Fixed--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • WrestleView.com does not have one of these, and it tacitly admits it uses materials for which it does not own the copyright, so I seriously question the reliability of this source. It looks like it sources something that can be easily verified by another citation, so I'd recommend going that route.

   WV has been used in a variety of FLs, FAs, and GAs. In most cases is supposed to be used for results and minor situations. It is used a secondary for a press release by ROH which reasonably would be fine. The original press release on ROH's site has been removed and an exact copy was not found on another site besides WV.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • I'm unsure of how to cite the Ring of Honor website. Ring of Honor itself is the publisher (which should show why this website should only be used to cite very basic facts and details), but unless the website itself has a name, the work would be rohwrestling.com, which looks strange.

   Cited as Ring of Honor.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Reference #9, titled "Philadelphia, PA- March 5th" links to an article called "Philadelphia, PA- May 21st" All other links are functional, though.

   Removed, deadlink.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Nothing, other than Silkin's quote, cries out to be appended with a {{fact}}

   C. No original research: Other than the less-than-unimpeachable WrestleView.com, this looks fine.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • No discussion of the belt itself? (beyond a single sentence mentioning the company, which does not does not seem notable, which made it) This is present on other pro wrestling title GA's like TNA X Division Championship

   Funny, I wrote the X Division article. There is a reason that it doesn't match the other GA championships I've gotten like the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, TNA World Tag Team Championship, TNA Women's Knockout Championship, TNA Knockout Tag Team Championship, TNA Global Championship, and the TNA X Division Championship. That being the fact I couldn't get an image of the championship belt at the time and the design of the belt has isn't a hot topic with writers these days. This is about the title, so I would assume the company which made the physical belt would be notable.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • bringing back the TV Title to national TV is consistent with ROH's current marketing under Jim Cornette to "re-capture an old-school flavor" to their product This could definitely be explored in greater depth. What is "old-school flavor?" What else has ROH done to re-capture it? It may sound like I'm asking you to violate the next point, but this really can all be brought back to this title. Particularly as this is the only mention of Cornette in the article, his ideas, of which this title is apparently one, are not well explained.

   Writer opinion more so. This is the first I've heard of any ideas. I've checked around, didn't find any more info on stuff like that, and it would probably fit better in the main ROH article under history rather than here.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   • As I already touched on above, the specifics of what exactly a TV title is should be part of the article.

   They range, but mostly they are just championships that are defended on tv like normal titles.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   • Will the tournament be of lasting encyclopedic significance? I don't see the tournament that crowned the first ROH World Tag Team Champions given in a bracket on that article. Smacks of recentism, though maybe I'm wrong, and the tournament should be added to the tag team article rather than removed from this one.

   That article is in bad shape. It hasn't been expanded. Measuring this article up to that one, is like measuring a finished office building to a half-built Denny's.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   • No free image of the belt? I thought wresslin' fans were all about smuggling in cameras to events.

   We don't have any big ROH fans on here. I didn't see anything under a free license on Flickr. All Star Championship belts just agreed the other day for us to use their images.--WillC 14:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text: Non-applicable

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   • I'm sorry. I believe in process, and "getting the article there," but it really looks to me like a fundamental rewrite is in order before this article can satisfy the GA criteria. The description of the tournament, which has already happened, as an unknown future in the prose is an especially glaring error. Therefore I'm going to fail the article. Please don't hesitate to take this to Good Article reassessment if you believe this assessment is in error, and do keep up the good work. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)